And with each of them possibly right into the hands of a new dictator, or a dictator of the mob, or most violent section of the mob.

Supporting popular revolt always has interesting and unplanned side effects.

Just ask Wisconsin...

Where is the money coming from to maintain government employment at full employment numbers?

Bernanke has said flat out 'no bail out for states' and Obama is cutting the budget not asking for another stimulus. PIMCO is unloading Treasuries. You think that's a vote of confidence?

So do we cut medicaid to save union jobs? How about welfare or food stamps?

I can't understand why anyone who is looking at the situation for what it actually is suddenly is bashing unions?

A little on the defensive there if you ask me.

I don't know where they get that, I guess from these mythical middle classes that "free trade" will create in India and China.

But yeah, the globe already has too many people and this topic has been taken over by political and philosophical forces, when population is the base number upon which so much else is based.

Economic "growth", should (although lately it's economic wealth shift) and is required to keep up with population.

But that's just too many people and the entire globe will not deal with this. I hate to say it but the only country who has really taken it on is China. Like it, or hate their 1 child policy, that is the reason for it.

The GOP just tried to defund planned parenthood and has successfully blocked any information family planning around the globe. We're not talking abortion, but any form of birth control.

I couldn't believe that IMF quote. Two days before the uprising, they say that the economy is in good shape. I wonder if they consider the people and their actions a part of the economy. Aren't the Chicago folks big on 'behavioral economics', e.g.

Richard H Thaler? So on the 15th, it's all good but on the 17th 'behavior' changes radically and impacts the economy. I realize that this is piling on but it is irresistible.

I don't know why we're not hearing about neocon economics, the globalization factor, in these nations. I know it was there in Egypt and Libya. Here's something from the IMF on Tunisia:

Structural reforms, prudent policies lessen impact of global crisis
High dependence on Europe brings uncertainty to short-term outlook
Key medium-term challenges are to boost employment, strengthen financial sector IMF Sept 10, 2010

Sounds good, no? The strongman's policies were so "prudent", people started immolating themselves in public squares.

It's Medal of Freedom time for the IMF!

If you're tracking housing data, sales at all, Calculated Risk has a must read post on how the NAR is misreporting their housing data.

Real means adjusted for inflation, what's the real increase, after taking inflation into account. So Calculated Risk adjusted for inflation and came up with this astounding result.

So, this means that all profits, investments from housing for the last decade are wiped out. That....is astounding.

So much for the great ownership society, which just masked the great job excodus to China and India.

It was economists from the Chicago school, not Milton Friedman per say, who went to Chile, although their "reforms" failed, specifically the privatization of social safety nets, it's still touted as a great idea by many, in spite of what actually happened. Also, the sociopathic sort of foreign policy that propped up dictators really started in earnest after WWII. The CIA led Iran coup to put the Shah in place is a classic example.

It was, all about oil, multinationals, I believe the invasion of Panama was about U.S. Fruit, a corporation wanting to maintain their holdings...

In the piece update on oil, there is a link to The Prize, which goes through the history of oil.

Oil and getting control of oil fields, was a major element in WWII. Without oil, one could not win the war. Japan bombing Pearl Harbor was also in part about oil. The U.S. secured a host of oil field, first, part of the reason to enter N. Africa.

Cold and heartless as it is, it's still true today, those who control oil, energy, control the world.

So, the U.S. has been protecting, promoting it's own economic interests and in my view, much worse, protecting multinational corporate interests for over 120 years.

Ok, so there's more unrest and civil uprising in the Middle East and northern Africa. But, what does it mean to the United States, our economy, oil prices, the value of our currency, American owned businesses, and John Q. Public on Main Street America? Will it ( civil disorder ) lead to possible military action by OUR military, a multi-national security force, the involvement of the U.N., international sanctions, and/or economic aid to support the opposition?

Can the U.S. greatly benefit from a "Lybia without Gaddafi"? Does Gaddafi have enough international support to stay in power? What importance does Lybia have in the region? Aside from oil, is Lybia an important player in the Global Economy? What is the extent of Lybia's influence in the region economically?

Should the U.S. be concerned whether or not Lybia has a stable government and economy?

This is another story in reference to the absurdity of screwing over workers while paying yourself, covered under "corporate executive compensation".

Balkin:

After seven months, they laid off 841 workers, which at a reasonable guess of $125,000 all-in cost per employee (salaries, benefits, space, phone, etc.) would represent annual savings of more than $100 million. And then the two partners borrowed $1.1 billion more on Travelport's balance sheet and paid that money to themselves, presumably as a reward for their hard work. In just seven months, that is, they got their $1 billion fund investment back, plus a markup, plus all those banking fees and annual management fees, and they still owned the company. And note that the annual $100 million in layoff savings would almost exactly cover the debt service on the $1.1 billion. That's elegant---what the financial press calls "creating value."

I posted BLS stats here last year showing a 4% unemployment level for government workers so they have lost 1% since then.

So while the private sectors ability to pay higher taxes has gone down government employment levels have barely changed at all.

No stimulus funding left to bail out the government sector this year though.