As the article suggests, the Comptroller of the Currency (Mr. Walsh and his bankster friends) continues to stonewall and protect the perpetrators of the fraud. The standard disinformation campaign (deadbeat borrowers, minor errors, foreclosures WERE justified)is meant to deflect the charges of predatory lending, predatory servicing, securities fraud, fraud on the courts, and perjury. These are all serious charges that no one agency (not even the Attorneys General) intends to prosecute. I have made my state Attorney General (Wisconsin) very aware of the fraudulent affidavits of ownership, non-recording of security interest, assignment of mortgage 14 months after they started the foreclosure, etc., etc. If you consider that all the REMIC tax law violations, if prosecuted, would probably amount to a high-enough number to extinguish the national debt, it's criminal in and of itself NOT TO PURSUE THESE CHARGES AGAINST THE BANKSTERS.
Mr. Obama is more worried about re-election than the Middle East being set on fire (or even Madison, for that matter). Do you really think he gives a crap about another 4 million families (on top of the 4 million already dispossessed of their homesteads) being foreclosed on? Not a chance. It's going to be a dog and pony show, to be sure! And the states can glom all that cash from the fines and try to balance their budgets with it.
As for the non-regulating regulators and non-enforcing enforcers (SEC, OCC, OTS, FBI, DOJ, FDIC, FINRA), you have a better chance of getting a reaction out of the ASPCA.
Great article, the numbers are all here documentation of our downfall. Now, what do you do about it when the President has sold out, the legislature and Supreme Court work for the Chamber of Commerce and the constituency is ignorant? There isn't any doubt wage earners have been getting screwed. I'm afraid the only thing that motivates people is hunger, real hunger pains.
I will have to dig for the information, but I've seen data showing that very few major corporations are 100% American owned. Do the stats you cited cover only true American owned businesses? Also, do the stats include corporate income from all sources, both foreign and domestic?
Thanks for welcoming me to EP. I have learned a lot from the writers here and hopefully I can contribute in a useful way.
I think that there are three facts we should keep in the foreground when analyzing the lopsided recovery.
1. In the last two years, corporate profits have staged their most successful turnaround in US history.
2. The current profit recovery was more dependent on declining unit labor costs than any previous recovery. Thus, wages grew at the second slowest pace on record in 2010(2009 was the weakest).
3. The US profit recovery has outperformed foreign corporates by a wide margin.
Consider this nugget from Deloitte, "The 187 US companies that reported fourth quarter results posted an average growth in net income or profits of 45% over the last year. The 34 European companies in the study, most of them based in Continental Europe, have seen profits rise on average by 25% over the last year."
Ian Stewart, Deloitte’s chief economist explains, “While company revenues are starting to pick up, cost control was vital to delivering strong profits in the fourth quarter. Revenues for the 187 US companies we analysed rose 7% over the last year, but profits increased more than five times as fast, by 45%.
Clearly, corporate America staged their most successful turnaround at the expense of American workers and the national economy. Corporate America's Greatest Recovery and the Great Recession are two sides of the same coin.
I hope your neighborhoods home value falls through the floor. ( TO what prices were worth 20 years ago, no fault of yours, just the economy and the people that have been foreclosed on that got NO help and then make the market fall ) and then lose your job. "These people are stabilizing the work force"... Hahaha so the ones that got laid off from no fault of their own and that have paid their mortgage for 16 years are"unstabilizing"it? Yeah, it's not the companies out there, or the bad economy, or wars, stocks,.... Help the ones who haven't taken a hit... (Like you??) PUT YOUR foot in someone elses shoe before you ignorantly type.
"Aside from job fairs, large corporations have been conspicuously absent from the tepid jobs recovery. But they are leading the profit recovery. Part of the reason is the expansion of overseas sales, but the profit recovery is primarily coming off the backs of American workers."
It is coming off our backs. It's coming off the backs of workers all over the world, employed or not.
This is the most under reported story and it seems no matter what, helping the U.S. workforce is the #1 thing corporations do not want to do, even when it implodes the economy as a whole.
In spectacular ways. Look at the foreclosure crisis, a million homes a year which means 2-3 million people tossed out. That happened due to a deliberately inflated real estate market by Greenspan and his Wall Street cronies. None of them lost their homes, you can be sure of that.
There are still people out there who don't now the basics in this post or who don't stack it all up and realize - this is a massive betrayal of the purpose of a nation and government. That purpose is for the people not the very few.
The Arab world “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country's battles in the air, on land, and sea.” So begins the official hymn of the U.S. Marines, setting out in one short sentence the long history of U.S. expansionism and intervention across the globe. Tripoli, the current capital of Libya, has a special place in this history because of the Barbary Wars, the first wars waged by the U.S. government in the early 1800s to protect its commercial interests in the Mediterranean Sea.
Starting in the 1940s, the Middle East and North Africa—which hold two-thirds of the world’s known oil reserves—again assumed a central place in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitical strategy. Reading statements from the State Department and the White House, one might think that all Washington cares about is peace, democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. They have continuously expressed “alarm” and “disapproval” at the incidents of violence.
A quick review of U.S. foreign policy in the region reveals that the government has never had an interest in peace, democracy or universal rights. They care not one whit about the Arab masses. Every word out of their mouths, no matter how it is sugar-coated, flows from their desire to retain U.S. political and economic hegemony.
To maintain access to the region’s vast natural resources, the U.S. government has propped up the most violent dictatorships of all kinds, from secular to religious. It has poured in hundreds of millions of dollars to buy politicians and influence elections. It has carried out countless covert operations—sabotage, assassinations, infiltration—to undermine popular figures and movements that have resisted U.S. domination. It has armed the colonial-settler state of Israel to the teeth, allowing it to strike out against its Arab neighbors and suppress the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination. It has helped divide nations, artificially created new ones, fought against all attempts at real Arab unity, and worked tirelessly to prevent any strong, independent countries from emerging in the region.
Washington imposed sanctions that took the lives of over one million Iraqis, including hundreds of thousands of children before 2003. Well over 1.3 million Iraqis have died as a result of the current war and occupation. In addition, there are 2 million people displaced inside of Iraq, and 2.5 million who are refugees in neighboring Syria and Jordan.
There are no figures available for the number of Iraqis wounded, but the most conservative estimate would be twice the number killed. Altogether, nearly one in three Iraqis have been killed, wounded or displaced since 2003. The spirit of resistance has not died in the Iraqi people, but their nation has been torn apart.
A third wave of Arab revolution
What is taking place across the Middle East and North Africa is the third great wave of revolts and revolutions against colonialism, neo-colonialism, and the regimes installed and sustained by imperialism. It is a reaffirmation that there is indeed an Arab Nation divided into many countries. While there are many differences between (and often within) Arab countries, there are also powerful elements of shared nationhood: language, common territory, culture and so on. How else can it be explained that the upheaval that started in Tunisia in January has spread to at least 10 other countries in the Arab world—and none outside?
The first revolutionary wave following World War I fought the takeover and division of the Middle East by British and French imperialism. The revolts were so strong in Egypt and Iraq that the British granted nominal independence to Egypt in 1922 and Iraq in 1932, while in reality retaining colonial control of both.
The second wave followed World War II with the overthrow of the old dependent regimes and monarchies in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya in the 1950s and 1960s, the victorious anti-colonial wars in Algeria and Yemen in the 1960s, the rise of the Palestinian revolutionary movement in the late 1960s, and the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970s, where the progressive Lebanese National Movement/PLO alliance was on the verge of victory until Syria intervened against it. There were also mass Palestinian intifadas in 1936-39, 1987-1991 and 2000-2002.
During these first two waves, the U.S. government and its allies were able to preserve the police-state hereditary monarchies in Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and, above all in their estimation, Saudi Arabia. Starting with Anwar Sadat, and especially with his successor Hosni Mubarak, the U.S. government was able to buy off Egypt and bring it decisively into their sphere of influence.
These states became strategic beachheads for U.S. imperialism, especially important in checking the influence of Iran after its popular, nationalist revolution of 1979.
Taken collectively, the protest movements and uprisings today in the Arab world have threatened this whole arrangement of power. They have proven once again—to the dismay of Washington—that it is the masses of people who make and change history. The U.S. government is not in control of events, but is desperately trying to influence them behind the scenes to guarantee the preservation of its political and economic interests.
Yemen and Bahrain
While the U.S. government now speaks about “universal rights” and “freedom of expression” in Yemen, just last year they were bombing it with drone attacks. In 2009, special-operations commandos began training President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s security forces—the same forces now firing on protesters.
In 2010, the U.S. government pumped in $155 million in military aid to help the Yemeni president fight against two separate rebel movements. While all of this was justified under the “war on terror,” the U.S.-backed airstrike in December 2009 killed 42 civilians, the vast majority of whom were women and children. A released Wikileaks cable from 2009 revealed that Saleh gave the Pentagon an “open door” to launch bombing assaults on any person or group deemed a “terrorist” by Washington.
The absolute monarchy in Bahrain has been fully backed by Washington for its entire existence.
Bahrain was a long-time protectorate of Britain, which exerted all of its pressure to keep the country from holding democratic elections. The majority Shia population occupies the lowest rungs in the Bahraini economy and is disenfranchised in every way. Until 2002, women could not vote. All political opposition has been suppressed. But the United States has protected the kingdom throughout. Why? Because of Bahrain’s oil wealth, its increasingly important role in regional and world finance, and its location on the geo-strategic Persian Gulf.
Does Washington care about democracy in the Middle East? Hardly!
The White House declares its concern for the protesters only to protect their own image and mythology. In reality, it is an enemy of the Arab masses who have taken it upon themselves to reclaim their countries and their destinies. To the extent that the people succeed in defeating the dictatorships and replacing them with freer and more just societies, they will have to confront the Empire. It will not, and cannot, be an honest partner in this process. The Arab people, of course, know this all too well. From Tunisia to Yemen, the deep skepticism and hostility toward Western governments is well-deserved.
Western powers bring death and destruction, nothing else
This must be a starting point for activists located in the United States and Europe when it comes to the Libyan revolt.
Unlike in Egypt, where it was clear that all of society with the exception of a tiny comprador elite opposed Mubarak, there is comparatively little information about the remaining base of support for Col. Moammar Gaddafi. If it is substantial, the country could fall into civil war with a scale of violence that far exceeds that seen in Egypt. If such a tragedy ensues, a variety of political forces—from liberal to neoconservative—will begin to call for the U.S. government to “do something.” This could take the form of sanctions, U.N. intervention, or the imposition of no-fly zones.
Already some, like neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraqi genocide, are advocating for such a “pro-active” approach. Sen. John Kerry, another pro-imperialist politician, is calling for sanctions, despite the horrific toll such a policy took on the Iraqi people during the 1990s.
Such threats must be absolutely rejected by progressive people. For one, the West would love to get boots on the ground in the region, with which they could influence and pressure the emerging Arab revolution. Secondly, these measures would be perceived as, and amount to, acts of war. The “peacekeeping” missions of the United States in Somalia and Yugoslavia were nothing other than bloody and destructive wars that widened conflict instead of solving it. Ask the people’s movements in Haiti or Palestine if the United Nation’s blue-helmeted occupations are any better.
The language of “we have to do something” is based on a fundamental misconception; the U.S., U.N. and NATO militaries are not “ours” to begin with, so “we” cannot use them for progressive aims.
The Libyan revolt
The revolt in Libya appears to have started among the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement in Libya was primarily composed of lawyers, judges, doctors and police officers. Very early on, it appeared that the defection of police and military units provided the anti-Gaddafi movement with arms. The fact that they have now reportedly “seized” entire cities in both the east and west of the country reflects a high degree of military sophistication.
Libya sits between Tunisia and Egypt, and it was only natural that the Arab revolt would draw in and inspire discontented youth in Libya. Their protest against Gaddafi undoubtedly has different roots than that of the middle-class opposition, which for decades resented Gaddafi’s formerly anti-imperialist stances. Like their counterparts elsewhere, many youth are in the streets because of high unemployment, inequality, and to demand a more open political system. The Libyan state’s military response—which, according to Al-Jazeera, included indiscriminate bombing of certain sections of Tripoli where protesters had gathered—appears to have only intensified opposition to the regime. As we write, the revolt appears to have control over broad sections of Libyan territory.
At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically. It does not appear to be led or directed by “foreign forces.”
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an exile group that has been interviewed constantly by foreign media as a leading opposition force, was for decades trained by the CIA. They are loudly demanding that the imperialist countries “take action” against Gaddafi, and have appeared frustrated that the West has so far only issued statements. It is unclear what the NFSL has on the ground in Libya, and what role they are playing in the revolt.
Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they have seized. Some in the Libyan exile community consciously call for the return of the Idris monarchy, but it is unclear how deeply this sentiment runs among those in revolt.
Until the 1969 revolution, Libya was home to the U.S. Wheelus Air Force base—the largest airbase in the world at the time—and the average Libyan lived in dire poverty. For these reasons, there was essentially no resistance when Gaddafi and other military officers overthrew Idris. To return to such a kingdom—the goal of opportunistic monarchists in exile—could only be considered a step backward for the Libyan people, and would stand opposed to those striving for democracy.
During its leftist phase after 1969, the Libyan government used the country’s vast oil resources to carry out profound economic and social development, including in the fields of education, health care, nutrition, and a massive water project. In its proclamations, the Libyan government placed the country’s development within a radical and populist context, and promoted semi-socialist political and economic concepts.
Whereas in the 1950s over 80 percent of the population could not read or write, illiteracy was almost completely wiped out by the early 1970s. The Gaddafi government also provided significant aid to neighboring states and to national liberation movements around the world. Libya is still ranked the highest among African countries in the Human Development Index—which includes such factors as living conditions, life expectancy and education.
It was during the 1970s and 1980s that Libya was demonized, sanctioned and attacked by the U.S. government and its allies. In 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of downtown Tripoli in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. Gaddafi survived, but his infant daughter and more than 300 others were killed this murderous assault. Many more were maimed and wounded.
Although the Libyan regime appealed to the popular masses in its political program, the regime also included bourgeois forces within both the military and civilian sectors. Over time and under relentless pressure from western imperialism, these bourgeois forces—many of whom looked to the West—strengthened. In recent years, inequality has increased as the Libyan government has ushered in neoliberal reforms that have stripped social programs and subsidies for the poor and increasingly turned over the country’s oil wealth to foreign corporations.
Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was, but he has decisively broken with the Arab popular liberation movements and has made many concessions to imperialism over the past decade. He has dismantled Libya’s weapons programs, officially supported the U.S. “war on terror,” and grown increasingly close to Italy, the former colonizer. In 2008, Gaddafi signed an accord with right-wing Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi to stop African immigrants from entering Italy in exchange for $5 billion in assistance over 25 years. While continuing to condemn Israel rhetorically, he expelled Palestinian migrant workers in the 1990s.
Gaddafi praised the popular uprising in Egypt, while also praising Tunisia’s former dictator Ben Ali after he was overthrown.
The developments in the last decade have greatly and understandably diminished his credibility among progressive and anti-imperialist forces in the region, almost all of which have declared their solidarity with the Libyan revolt.
While the U.S. media is in a particular frenzy against Gaddafi—speaking very suggestively about military intervention—Washington’s official line on Libya is at present similar to their messages regarding their puppets in Bahrain and Yemen. But as the revolt continues, taking on the characteristics of a civil war, U.S. policy may be shifting.
President Obama said about Libya on Feb. 23: “I have also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners or those that we'll carry out through multilateral institutions.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed this: “Everything will be on the table. We will look at all options.”
While the U.S. policymakers dream about owning Libya outright, and replacing Gaddafi with a client regime, their main concern is now, as it has always been, stable and guaranteed control over Middle East oil resources. To the extent Washington becomes more “pro-active” against Libya, it will mean they have devised a plan—or found someone better—to do that job.
As the third wave of revolution spreads, deepens, and faces new contradictions, it is the people of Libya and the Arab world who will determine their future. For activists here, our main task is to mobilize in opposition to any and all U.S. threats against Libya and the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa.
While it may be true that we made a bad call in the past, having a little egg on our face doesn't mean big changes here at home. Look at the bad calls we've made concerning Iraq, OBL, Afghanistan, VietNam, Mexico, and to an extent, Russia. Those bad calls did adversely affect home. But, my questions were concerning Lybia and other countries experiencing civil unrest.
My point was that at present, we have bigger fish to fry. Sure, Lybia's oil production, or lack thereof, does adversely affect us here at home when the price of gasoline at the pump jumps. But, concerning ourselves with civil unrest and riots in the Middle East and Northern Africa doesn't address the problems here at home. There will always be discontent somewhere abroad, as it has been for centuries, especially in the Middle East. We can't afford the continuing practice of sticking our nose into affairs that basically are of little or no direct benefit here at home. We're presently paying dearly in lives and money for doing so ( Iraq and Afghanistan ).
Where's the concern for the millions of innocent civilians slaughtered, massacred, raped, and starved, in some of the African nations over the past decade? Have we sent troops to Africa, imposed economic sanctions, withheld foreign aid, or provided a safe haven for the innocent?
In other words, where does the present events in Lybia rank on our priority list?
Yes, there are instances where automation, technology, and modernization have replaced workers. But, those cases are the exception rather than the rule. Do you honestly believe that automation, technology, and modernization has replaced 27 million workers that are presently unemployed? In reality, the bulk of our unemployed are idle, due primarily to our import dependency and out-sourcing jobs to cheap labor markets abroad.
Jobs are leaving this country because our standard of living does not allow us to compete with cheap foreign labor. Companies move outside of our borders in order to take advantage of cheap labor pools and less restrictions. Companies out-source jobs to foreign labor markets because American workers, in America, are way more expensive to employ. Microsoft out-sources programming, and not because of automation.
Even your president, Mr. Obama, has recognized the damage job out-sourcing has caused. He has publicly asked businesses to keep jobs in America.
Automation hasn't replaced customer service, medical billing, legal research, payroll, bookkeeping and accounting, and other task out-sourced to foreign labor markets.
Technically, we out-source textile product production, steel production, electronic assembly, furniture manufacturing, toy manufacturing, appliance manufacturing, automotive manufacturing, hardware manufacturing, farm equipment manufacturing, industrial machinery manufacturing, tool manufacturing, food processing, farming, housewares manufacturing, and many sporting goods are made out-side of our borders.
In reality, we import most of what we use and consume. In addition, our service sector out-sources millions of jobs to India and Southeast Asia. We also import most of the oil that we use, while American oil wells remain capped and unproductive.
Automation certainly can't be blamed for recent college and high school grads being unemployed. Automation certainly can't be blamed for closed plants and factories. And, automation certainly can't be blamed for the millions of full-time jobs that have been filled with part-time help. Exceptions? Yes. But not to the extent that it accounts for the economically devastating unemployment numbers we're seeing.
Sorry for the delay in responding. In my opinion, the United States and the various international agencies that it uses must operate with integrity when dealing with foreign powers. The dictators that the government seems to like so much end up torturing and killing their own people, stealing money, and, in general, disgracing their allies. That's what is happening now with Libya. The US and UK both touted Gaddafi as some sort of poster child for their rehabilitation efforts. He wasn't and never could have been. I suspect that they know that.
In this situation,, the US faces a dilemma - urge the ouster of Gadaffi and incur the negative residue from the US government role in supporting him or support him now and face the scorn of the entire Arab world. It's time to clean up our act to avoid a repetition of events like this in the future where there are only bad choices.
Firstly you're probably a EET if you're programming PLCs. Secondly, PLCs have been around for over 20 years, the fact you found a place not using them is rare. Sorry but while technological advances account for some of this, it is certainly not all and I doubt even half. Whatever you're feeling guilty about, get over it, not only did you not cause 4 people to lose their jobs, odds on you will be replaced with a H-1B.
You're probably right, and chances are those in Washington know it also. I find it very hard to believe that you and I can see it, and Washington doesn't. We'll know for sure within the next 18 months to 2 years. By that time, we'll either be at or near the economic bottom, or we'll see signs that someone is willing to start repairing the damage. I believe that we have to hit rock bottom before folks wake up to what has been going on for many decades.
Points To Consider:
(1) We are a very divided nation. We're divided along political lines, economic lines, and ethnic lines. ( we're not on the same page of the playbook )
(2) We don't have the resources to continue the support of those dependent on government assistance programs. ( we have growing poverty and homelessness )
(3) Our astronomical debt can't be rectified by continuing down our present economic path. ( proposed spending cuts are less than the interest on the national debt )
(4) The government's practice and habit of using debt to pay debt does not put positive cash in our economy. ( we borrow money each and every day just to fund government and the two senseless deadly costly wars )
(5) Perpetual wars seems a reality at present. ( Iraq, Afghanistan )
(6) A suppressed people soon revolt ( Middle east, North africa ).
(7) "Global Economy" means equalization to the lowest level. ( our import and energy dependency is pushing our standard of living lower - unemployment - lower over-all wages - wages to cost of living ratio - tax burden )
(8) The failure of government to address the root causes for our economic woes. ( unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies - unpenalized job out-sourcing to foreign labor markets )
Our failure to address the problems decades ago served only to enrich a relatively few at the expense of the whole. And now, the problems have become so complicated and complex, that to fix them would mean years of harsh sacrifices. Personally, I don't believe that we have the will, resources, and time, necessary to recover.
Remember that what has happened didn't happen by chance, nor by accident, but was planned and engineered by those that we entrusted with the well-being of this nation and her citizens.
Outsourcing is probably not even half of the reason jobs are leaving the us. I am an automation engineer. I worked at an assembly plant in the US that built residential water meters. They had an antiquated production line that required 7 people. We redesigned with pneumatics and PLCs( Programmable Logic Controllers) and other sensors and such. And just like that, what took 7 low skilled people now only takes 3. Sorry, but I gotta eat too.
I just tried to get help. We are > 150K under water but are current. We need to move for a new job but Wells Fargo basically stated not going to help. I can short sell or foreclose.
Really disappointed - I even offered to split the loss with them and they said no. Doesn't pay to be a good consumer.
You are correct - they are relying upon us to keep things afloat - but I will be walking away from this anchor and then myself contributing to the poor housing prices.
home values will not return to their valued highs of 2006. More sensible appreciation is predicted if this economy ever gets over the doldrums. The ones who stand to win could be those who have purchased dirt cheap property recently and of course those who have substantial equity in their homes already. Those who bought in 2004 to 2006, well, what can I say?
As the article suggests, the Comptroller of the Currency (Mr. Walsh and his bankster friends) continues to stonewall and protect the perpetrators of the fraud. The standard disinformation campaign (deadbeat borrowers, minor errors, foreclosures WERE justified)is meant to deflect the charges of predatory lending, predatory servicing, securities fraud, fraud on the courts, and perjury. These are all serious charges that no one agency (not even the Attorneys General) intends to prosecute. I have made my state Attorney General (Wisconsin) very aware of the fraudulent affidavits of ownership, non-recording of security interest, assignment of mortgage 14 months after they started the foreclosure, etc., etc. If you consider that all the REMIC tax law violations, if prosecuted, would probably amount to a high-enough number to extinguish the national debt, it's criminal in and of itself NOT TO PURSUE THESE CHARGES AGAINST THE BANKSTERS.
Mr. Obama is more worried about re-election than the Middle East being set on fire (or even Madison, for that matter). Do you really think he gives a crap about another 4 million families (on top of the 4 million already dispossessed of their homesteads) being foreclosed on? Not a chance. It's going to be a dog and pony show, to be sure! And the states can glom all that cash from the fines and try to balance their budgets with it.
As for the non-regulating regulators and non-enforcing enforcers (SEC, OCC, OTS, FBI, DOJ, FDIC, FINRA), you have a better chance of getting a reaction out of the ASPCA.
We're doomed!
Great article, the numbers are all here documentation of our downfall. Now, what do you do about it when the President has sold out, the legislature and Supreme Court work for the Chamber of Commerce and the constituency is ignorant? There isn't any doubt wage earners have been getting screwed. I'm afraid the only thing that motivates people is hunger, real hunger pains.
I will have to dig for the information, but I've seen data showing that very few major corporations are 100% American owned. Do the stats you cited cover only true American owned businesses? Also, do the stats include corporate income from all sources, both foreign and domestic?
The source for this is another blog with no sources?
Wait till 20% down payments are required on mortgages or even 30% which Wells Fargo is pushing for.
Thanks for welcoming me to EP. I have learned a lot from the writers here and hopefully I can contribute in a useful way.
I think that there are three facts we should keep in the foreground when analyzing the lopsided recovery.
1. In the last two years, corporate profits have staged their most successful turnaround in US history.
2. The current profit recovery was more dependent on declining unit labor costs than any previous recovery. Thus, wages grew at the second slowest pace on record in 2010(2009 was the weakest).
3. The US profit recovery has outperformed foreign corporates by a wide margin.
Consider this nugget from Deloitte, "The 187 US companies that reported fourth quarter results posted an average growth in net income or profits of 45% over the last year. The 34 European companies in the study, most of them based in Continental Europe, have seen profits rise on average by 25% over the last year."
Ian Stewart, Deloitte’s chief economist explains, “While company revenues are starting to pick up, cost control was vital to delivering strong profits in the fourth quarter. Revenues for the 187 US companies we analysed rose 7% over the last year, but profits increased more than five times as fast, by 45%.
Clearly, corporate America staged their most successful turnaround at the expense of American workers and the national economy. Corporate America's Greatest Recovery and the Great Recession are two sides of the same coin.
Part I lays out the thesis, published in Dollars&Sense, check it out:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/1210provost.html
I welcome any criticism or questions.
I hope your neighborhoods home value falls through the floor. ( TO what prices were worth 20 years ago, no fault of yours, just the economy and the people that have been foreclosed on that got NO help and then make the market fall ) and then lose your job. "These people are stabilizing the work force"... Hahaha so the ones that got laid off from no fault of their own and that have paid their mortgage for 16 years are"unstabilizing"it? Yeah, it's not the companies out there, or the bad economy, or wars, stocks,.... Help the ones who haven't taken a hit... (Like you??) PUT YOUR foot in someone elses shoe before you ignorantly type.
"Aside from job fairs, large corporations have been conspicuously absent from the tepid jobs recovery. But they are leading the profit recovery. Part of the reason is the expansion of overseas sales, but the profit recovery is primarily coming off the backs of American workers."
It is coming off our backs. It's coming off the backs of workers all over the world, employed or not.
This is an excellent article. Thanks!
This is the most under reported story and it seems no matter what, helping the U.S. workforce is the #1 thing corporations do not want to do, even when it implodes the economy as a whole.
In spectacular ways. Look at the foreclosure crisis, a million homes a year which means 2-3 million people tossed out. That happened due to a deliberately inflated real estate market by Greenspan and his Wall Street cronies. None of them lost their homes, you can be sure of that.
There are still people out there who don't now the basics in this post or who don't stack it all up and realize - this is a massive betrayal of the purpose of a nation and government. That purpose is for the people not the very few.
I agree with you point here.
This should be picked up by Bloomberg or CNBC.
Which is a damn fine one to be picked up, here.
Imperialism has nothing to offer the Middle East
The Arab world “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country's battles in the air, on land, and sea.” So begins the official hymn of the U.S. Marines, setting out in one short sentence the long history of U.S. expansionism and intervention across the globe. Tripoli, the current capital of Libya, has a special place in this history because of the Barbary Wars, the first wars waged by the U.S. government in the early 1800s to protect its commercial interests in the Mediterranean Sea.
Starting in the 1940s, the Middle East and North Africa—which hold two-thirds of the world’s known oil reserves—again assumed a central place in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitical strategy. Reading statements from the State Department and the White House, one might think that all Washington cares about is peace, democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. They have continuously expressed “alarm” and “disapproval” at the incidents of violence.
A quick review of U.S. foreign policy in the region reveals that the government has never had an interest in peace, democracy or universal rights. They care not one whit about the Arab masses. Every word out of their mouths, no matter how it is sugar-coated, flows from their desire to retain U.S. political and economic hegemony.
To maintain access to the region’s vast natural resources, the U.S. government has propped up the most violent dictatorships of all kinds, from secular to religious. It has poured in hundreds of millions of dollars to buy politicians and influence elections. It has carried out countless covert operations—sabotage, assassinations, infiltration—to undermine popular figures and movements that have resisted U.S. domination. It has armed the colonial-settler state of Israel to the teeth, allowing it to strike out against its Arab neighbors and suppress the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination. It has helped divide nations, artificially created new ones, fought against all attempts at real Arab unity, and worked tirelessly to prevent any strong, independent countries from emerging in the region.
Washington imposed sanctions that took the lives of over one million Iraqis, including hundreds of thousands of children before 2003. Well over 1.3 million Iraqis have died as a result of the current war and occupation. In addition, there are 2 million people displaced inside of Iraq, and 2.5 million who are refugees in neighboring Syria and Jordan.
There are no figures available for the number of Iraqis wounded, but the most conservative estimate would be twice the number killed. Altogether, nearly one in three Iraqis have been killed, wounded or displaced since 2003. The spirit of resistance has not died in the Iraqi people, but their nation has been torn apart.
A third wave of Arab revolution
What is taking place across the Middle East and North Africa is the third great wave of revolts and revolutions against colonialism, neo-colonialism, and the regimes installed and sustained by imperialism. It is a reaffirmation that there is indeed an Arab Nation divided into many countries. While there are many differences between (and often within) Arab countries, there are also powerful elements of shared nationhood: language, common territory, culture and so on. How else can it be explained that the upheaval that started in Tunisia in January has spread to at least 10 other countries in the Arab world—and none outside?
The first revolutionary wave following World War I fought the takeover and division of the Middle East by British and French imperialism. The revolts were so strong in Egypt and Iraq that the British granted nominal independence to Egypt in 1922 and Iraq in 1932, while in reality retaining colonial control of both.
The second wave followed World War II with the overthrow of the old dependent regimes and monarchies in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya in the 1950s and 1960s, the victorious anti-colonial wars in Algeria and Yemen in the 1960s, the rise of the Palestinian revolutionary movement in the late 1960s, and the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970s, where the progressive Lebanese National Movement/PLO alliance was on the verge of victory until Syria intervened against it. There were also mass Palestinian intifadas in 1936-39, 1987-1991 and 2000-2002.
During these first two waves, the U.S. government and its allies were able to preserve the police-state hereditary monarchies in Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and, above all in their estimation, Saudi Arabia. Starting with Anwar Sadat, and especially with his successor Hosni Mubarak, the U.S. government was able to buy off Egypt and bring it decisively into their sphere of influence.
These states became strategic beachheads for U.S. imperialism, especially important in checking the influence of Iran after its popular, nationalist revolution of 1979.
Taken collectively, the protest movements and uprisings today in the Arab world have threatened this whole arrangement of power. They have proven once again—to the dismay of Washington—that it is the masses of people who make and change history. The U.S. government is not in control of events, but is desperately trying to influence them behind the scenes to guarantee the preservation of its political and economic interests.
Yemen and Bahrain
While the U.S. government now speaks about “universal rights” and “freedom of expression” in Yemen, just last year they were bombing it with drone attacks. In 2009, special-operations commandos began training President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s security forces—the same forces now firing on protesters.
In 2010, the U.S. government pumped in $155 million in military aid to help the Yemeni president fight against two separate rebel movements. While all of this was justified under the “war on terror,” the U.S.-backed airstrike in December 2009 killed 42 civilians, the vast majority of whom were women and children. A released Wikileaks cable from 2009 revealed that Saleh gave the Pentagon an “open door” to launch bombing assaults on any person or group deemed a “terrorist” by Washington.
The absolute monarchy in Bahrain has been fully backed by Washington for its entire existence.
Bahrain was a long-time protectorate of Britain, which exerted all of its pressure to keep the country from holding democratic elections. The majority Shia population occupies the lowest rungs in the Bahraini economy and is disenfranchised in every way. Until 2002, women could not vote. All political opposition has been suppressed. But the United States has protected the kingdom throughout. Why? Because of Bahrain’s oil wealth, its increasingly important role in regional and world finance, and its location on the geo-strategic Persian Gulf.
Does Washington care about democracy in the Middle East? Hardly!
The White House declares its concern for the protesters only to protect their own image and mythology. In reality, it is an enemy of the Arab masses who have taken it upon themselves to reclaim their countries and their destinies. To the extent that the people succeed in defeating the dictatorships and replacing them with freer and more just societies, they will have to confront the Empire. It will not, and cannot, be an honest partner in this process. The Arab people, of course, know this all too well. From Tunisia to Yemen, the deep skepticism and hostility toward Western governments is well-deserved.
Western powers bring death and destruction, nothing else
This must be a starting point for activists located in the United States and Europe when it comes to the Libyan revolt.
Unlike in Egypt, where it was clear that all of society with the exception of a tiny comprador elite opposed Mubarak, there is comparatively little information about the remaining base of support for Col. Moammar Gaddafi. If it is substantial, the country could fall into civil war with a scale of violence that far exceeds that seen in Egypt. If such a tragedy ensues, a variety of political forces—from liberal to neoconservative—will begin to call for the U.S. government to “do something.” This could take the form of sanctions, U.N. intervention, or the imposition of no-fly zones.
Already some, like neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraqi genocide, are advocating for such a “pro-active” approach. Sen. John Kerry, another pro-imperialist politician, is calling for sanctions, despite the horrific toll such a policy took on the Iraqi people during the 1990s.
Such threats must be absolutely rejected by progressive people. For one, the West would love to get boots on the ground in the region, with which they could influence and pressure the emerging Arab revolution. Secondly, these measures would be perceived as, and amount to, acts of war. The “peacekeeping” missions of the United States in Somalia and Yugoslavia were nothing other than bloody and destructive wars that widened conflict instead of solving it. Ask the people’s movements in Haiti or Palestine if the United Nation’s blue-helmeted occupations are any better.
The language of “we have to do something” is based on a fundamental misconception; the U.S., U.N. and NATO militaries are not “ours” to begin with, so “we” cannot use them for progressive aims.
The Libyan revolt
The revolt in Libya appears to have started among the long-time opposition to Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi. Initial reports indicated that the movement in Libya was primarily composed of lawyers, judges, doctors and police officers. Very early on, it appeared that the defection of police and military units provided the anti-Gaddafi movement with arms. The fact that they have now reportedly “seized” entire cities in both the east and west of the country reflects a high degree of military sophistication.
Libya sits between Tunisia and Egypt, and it was only natural that the Arab revolt would draw in and inspire discontented youth in Libya. Their protest against Gaddafi undoubtedly has different roots than that of the middle-class opposition, which for decades resented Gaddafi’s formerly anti-imperialist stances. Like their counterparts elsewhere, many youth are in the streets because of high unemployment, inequality, and to demand a more open political system. The Libyan state’s military response—which, according to Al-Jazeera, included indiscriminate bombing of certain sections of Tripoli where protesters had gathered—appears to have only intensified opposition to the regime. As we write, the revolt appears to have control over broad sections of Libyan territory.
At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically. It does not appear to be led or directed by “foreign forces.”
The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an exile group that has been interviewed constantly by foreign media as a leading opposition force, was for decades trained by the CIA. They are loudly demanding that the imperialist countries “take action” against Gaddafi, and have appeared frustrated that the West has so far only issued statements. It is unclear what the NFSL has on the ground in Libya, and what role they are playing in the revolt.
Protesters have hoisted Libya’s first national flag, that of the exploitative, U.S.-backed monarch King Idris (1951-1969) over the areas they have seized. Some in the Libyan exile community consciously call for the return of the Idris monarchy, but it is unclear how deeply this sentiment runs among those in revolt.
Until the 1969 revolution, Libya was home to the U.S. Wheelus Air Force base—the largest airbase in the world at the time—and the average Libyan lived in dire poverty. For these reasons, there was essentially no resistance when Gaddafi and other military officers overthrew Idris. To return to such a kingdom—the goal of opportunistic monarchists in exile—could only be considered a step backward for the Libyan people, and would stand opposed to those striving for democracy.
During its leftist phase after 1969, the Libyan government used the country’s vast oil resources to carry out profound economic and social development, including in the fields of education, health care, nutrition, and a massive water project. In its proclamations, the Libyan government placed the country’s development within a radical and populist context, and promoted semi-socialist political and economic concepts.
Whereas in the 1950s over 80 percent of the population could not read or write, illiteracy was almost completely wiped out by the early 1970s. The Gaddafi government also provided significant aid to neighboring states and to national liberation movements around the world. Libya is still ranked the highest among African countries in the Human Development Index—which includes such factors as living conditions, life expectancy and education.
It was during the 1970s and 1980s that Libya was demonized, sanctioned and attacked by the U.S. government and its allies. In 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of downtown Tripoli in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. Gaddafi survived, but his infant daughter and more than 300 others were killed this murderous assault. Many more were maimed and wounded.
Although the Libyan regime appealed to the popular masses in its political program, the regime also included bourgeois forces within both the military and civilian sectors. Over time and under relentless pressure from western imperialism, these bourgeois forces—many of whom looked to the West—strengthened. In recent years, inequality has increased as the Libyan government has ushered in neoliberal reforms that have stripped social programs and subsidies for the poor and increasingly turned over the country’s oil wealth to foreign corporations.
Gaddafi is not a puppet of imperialism like Mubarak was, but he has decisively broken with the Arab popular liberation movements and has made many concessions to imperialism over the past decade. He has dismantled Libya’s weapons programs, officially supported the U.S. “war on terror,” and grown increasingly close to Italy, the former colonizer. In 2008, Gaddafi signed an accord with right-wing Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi to stop African immigrants from entering Italy in exchange for $5 billion in assistance over 25 years. While continuing to condemn Israel rhetorically, he expelled Palestinian migrant workers in the 1990s.
Gaddafi praised the popular uprising in Egypt, while also praising Tunisia’s former dictator Ben Ali after he was overthrown.
The developments in the last decade have greatly and understandably diminished his credibility among progressive and anti-imperialist forces in the region, almost all of which have declared their solidarity with the Libyan revolt.
While the U.S. media is in a particular frenzy against Gaddafi—speaking very suggestively about military intervention—Washington’s official line on Libya is at present similar to their messages regarding their puppets in Bahrain and Yemen. But as the revolt continues, taking on the characteristics of a civil war, U.S. policy may be shifting.
President Obama said about Libya on Feb. 23: “I have also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners or those that we'll carry out through multilateral institutions.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed this: “Everything will be on the table. We will look at all options.”
While the U.S. policymakers dream about owning Libya outright, and replacing Gaddafi with a client regime, their main concern is now, as it has always been, stable and guaranteed control over Middle East oil resources. To the extent Washington becomes more “pro-active” against Libya, it will mean they have devised a plan—or found someone better—to do that job.
As the third wave of revolution spreads, deepens, and faces new contradictions, it is the people of Libya and the Arab world who will determine their future. For activists here, our main task is to mobilize in opposition to any and all U.S. threats against Libya and the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa.
While it may be true that we made a bad call in the past, having a little egg on our face doesn't mean big changes here at home. Look at the bad calls we've made concerning Iraq, OBL, Afghanistan, VietNam, Mexico, and to an extent, Russia. Those bad calls did adversely affect home. But, my questions were concerning Lybia and other countries experiencing civil unrest.
My point was that at present, we have bigger fish to fry. Sure, Lybia's oil production, or lack thereof, does adversely affect us here at home when the price of gasoline at the pump jumps. But, concerning ourselves with civil unrest and riots in the Middle East and Northern Africa doesn't address the problems here at home. There will always be discontent somewhere abroad, as it has been for centuries, especially in the Middle East. We can't afford the continuing practice of sticking our nose into affairs that basically are of little or no direct benefit here at home. We're presently paying dearly in lives and money for doing so ( Iraq and Afghanistan ).
Where's the concern for the millions of innocent civilians slaughtered, massacred, raped, and starved, in some of the African nations over the past decade? Have we sent troops to Africa, imposed economic sanctions, withheld foreign aid, or provided a safe haven for the innocent?
In other words, where does the present events in Lybia rank on our priority list?
Yes, there are instances where automation, technology, and modernization have replaced workers. But, those cases are the exception rather than the rule. Do you honestly believe that automation, technology, and modernization has replaced 27 million workers that are presently unemployed? In reality, the bulk of our unemployed are idle, due primarily to our import dependency and out-sourcing jobs to cheap labor markets abroad.
Jobs are leaving this country because our standard of living does not allow us to compete with cheap foreign labor. Companies move outside of our borders in order to take advantage of cheap labor pools and less restrictions. Companies out-source jobs to foreign labor markets because American workers, in America, are way more expensive to employ. Microsoft out-sources programming, and not because of automation.
Even your president, Mr. Obama, has recognized the damage job out-sourcing has caused. He has publicly asked businesses to keep jobs in America.
Automation hasn't replaced customer service, medical billing, legal research, payroll, bookkeeping and accounting, and other task out-sourced to foreign labor markets.
Technically, we out-source textile product production, steel production, electronic assembly, furniture manufacturing, toy manufacturing, appliance manufacturing, automotive manufacturing, hardware manufacturing, farm equipment manufacturing, industrial machinery manufacturing, tool manufacturing, food processing, farming, housewares manufacturing, and many sporting goods are made out-side of our borders.
In reality, we import most of what we use and consume. In addition, our service sector out-sources millions of jobs to India and Southeast Asia. We also import most of the oil that we use, while American oil wells remain capped and unproductive.
Automation certainly can't be blamed for recent college and high school grads being unemployed. Automation certainly can't be blamed for closed plants and factories. And, automation certainly can't be blamed for the millions of full-time jobs that have been filled with part-time help. Exceptions? Yes. But not to the extent that it accounts for the economically devastating unemployment numbers we're seeing.
Sorry for the delay in responding. In my opinion, the United States and the various international agencies that it uses must operate with integrity when dealing with foreign powers. The dictators that the government seems to like so much end up torturing and killing their own people, stealing money, and, in general, disgracing their allies. That's what is happening now with Libya. The US and UK both touted Gaddafi as some sort of poster child for their rehabilitation efforts. He wasn't and never could have been. I suspect that they know that.
In this situation,, the US faces a dilemma - urge the ouster of Gadaffi and incur the negative residue from the US government role in supporting him or support him now and face the scorn of the entire Arab world. It's time to clean up our act to avoid a repetition of events like this in the future where there are only bad choices.
Firstly you're probably a EET if you're programming PLCs. Secondly, PLCs have been around for over 20 years, the fact you found a place not using them is rare. Sorry but while technological advances account for some of this, it is certainly not all and I doubt even half. Whatever you're feeling guilty about, get over it, not only did you not cause 4 people to lose their jobs, odds on you will be replaced with a H-1B.
You're probably right, and chances are those in Washington know it also. I find it very hard to believe that you and I can see it, and Washington doesn't. We'll know for sure within the next 18 months to 2 years. By that time, we'll either be at or near the economic bottom, or we'll see signs that someone is willing to start repairing the damage. I believe that we have to hit rock bottom before folks wake up to what has been going on for many decades.
Points To Consider:
(1) We are a very divided nation. We're divided along political lines, economic lines, and ethnic lines. ( we're not on the same page of the playbook )
(2) We don't have the resources to continue the support of those dependent on government assistance programs. ( we have growing poverty and homelessness )
(3) Our astronomical debt can't be rectified by continuing down our present economic path. ( proposed spending cuts are less than the interest on the national debt )
(4) The government's practice and habit of using debt to pay debt does not put positive cash in our economy. ( we borrow money each and every day just to fund government and the two senseless deadly costly wars )
(5) Perpetual wars seems a reality at present. ( Iraq, Afghanistan )
(6) A suppressed people soon revolt ( Middle east, North africa ).
(7) "Global Economy" means equalization to the lowest level. ( our import and energy dependency is pushing our standard of living lower - unemployment - lower over-all wages - wages to cost of living ratio - tax burden )
(8) The failure of government to address the root causes for our economic woes. ( unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies - unpenalized job out-sourcing to foreign labor markets )
Our failure to address the problems decades ago served only to enrich a relatively few at the expense of the whole. And now, the problems have become so complicated and complex, that to fix them would mean years of harsh sacrifices. Personally, I don't believe that we have the will, resources, and time, necessary to recover.
Remember that what has happened didn't happen by chance, nor by accident, but was planned and engineered by those that we entrusted with the well-being of this nation and her citizens.
Outsourcing is probably not even half of the reason jobs are leaving the us. I am an automation engineer. I worked at an assembly plant in the US that built residential water meters. They had an antiquated production line that required 7 people. We redesigned with pneumatics and PLCs( Programmable Logic Controllers) and other sensors and such. And just like that, what took 7 low skilled people now only takes 3. Sorry, but I gotta eat too.
I just tried to get help. We are > 150K under water but are current. We need to move for a new job but Wells Fargo basically stated not going to help. I can short sell or foreclose.
Really disappointed - I even offered to split the loss with them and they said no. Doesn't pay to be a good consumer.
You are correct - they are relying upon us to keep things afloat - but I will be walking away from this anchor and then myself contributing to the poor housing prices.
home values will not return to their valued highs of 2006. More sensible appreciation is predicted if this economy ever gets over the doldrums. The ones who stand to win could be those who have purchased dirt cheap property recently and of course those who have substantial equity in their homes already. Those who bought in 2004 to 2006, well, what can I say?
Pages