Now comes the second shoe -- slooow recovery and mortgages that still exceed the value of the underlying assets. In the stock market, such a situation would have been cleared quickly with margin calls. But houses are both illiquid and wasting assets. There is now talk of strategic default on mortgages. But the financial elites are whistling past the over-leveraged houses.
Debt forgiveness is a somewhat foreign concept in our economic culture. It conjures up bankruptcy and dire circumstances. Yet the Fed, with its huge balance sheet, could allow a public agency to use the ultra-low cost of funds to create low-interest mortgages, giving homeowners an incentive to stay in their houses. OR we could have a nationl program to rate existing mortgages so that the true LTV ratio would depress the market value of those debts, and allow homeowners to buy back their mortgage at a discount via refinancing. It would also force the financial community to find those mortgages and match them to the properties. This is not debt forgiveness -- it is rather truth-in-mortgage debt, to allow a national reset of LTV ratios and allow homeowners to sell and move on. The banks would find a way to pass most of the cost back to the government, but that is not so different from a home-buyers tax credit or cash-for-junkers. Yes, it would make mortgage originators cautious in the future -- as they should have been in the Greenspan bubble years. It would deflate the debt ro its true value, let us move on and try getting back to a sane economy. Not easy, but possible and maybe a little more just.
Frank T.
Jobs were sacrificed in the interest of bipartisanship and moderation. It had to bold and innovative - it was neither. Now, we are left with the mess.
I also believe that Keynesian counter-cyclical polices can work but this poor example will doom Keynesian economics for another 30 years.
As for teabaggers, the people doing the protesting may have a point but the people behind the scenes particularly people like Dick Armey help create this mess the lead to the financial oligarchy bailout and this lame ass stimulus plan.
On Openleft, Chris Bowers was asking why not use TARP money for a WPA-type program. I said the proper question is
Why wasn't a WPA-type program included in the Stimulus package proposed by a Democratic WH and passed by a Democratic Congress?
There, I said it. It's not that the Stimulus by itself was a bad idea, it's not. It's clear to me Keynesian stimulus does work.
The problem is how it was directed. They refused, simply refused to tie the money to income. Into the pockets of U.S. workers, into the domestic economy and providing jobs, income for U.S. workers.
That's what's wrong with it. I said at the time and I'll say it again, unless my mathematics ability leaves me on outer space, the Keynesian formula clearly shows government spending must be 1. put into the pockets of citizens in some fashion that also generates work/production 2. stays within the domestic economy that a government is responsible for.
Even of the little money supposedly to generate jobs....a lot has been offshore outsourced, they used a no-bid contract system....the same as Iraq, so we know there is waste, corruption and probably not the max. if any U.S. workers hired....and that money was also way too small.
i.e. they needed a jobs program from the get go, a real one.
U.S. workers for U.S. jobs in the U.S.A.
Now we have record unemployment with record deficits. Awesome.
and they wonder why the Tea Parties and those proclaiming low taxes and smaller government is such a movement. Of course it is because the government just gives money away to lobbyists and their clients...it's not using U.S. taxpayer money in the national interest and it's also not efficient. Who wants a government like this?
I'm a huge New Dealer type of political person or "big D" old school Democratic party type....
but I certainly understand the conservatives under these circumstances.
I can try or if you get the draft legislation, by hook or by crook, can you upload it here on EP and let's take a look at it?
Frankly, corporate lobbyists love to claim their agendas "create jobs" when in fact they offshore outsource even more jobs or bring in guest workers to displace American workers.
Then, we have "trade" agreements, which they will claim will "increase jobs"....when in fact they lose U.S. jobs.
Then, we have "business competitiveness" and (this is a research project) over and over again we get "tax credits" which are taken by corporations yet.....they never create jobs...nope, they ....layoff more people and create jobs overseas instead.
So, out of the lobbyists toolkit, it's standard fare for them to claim in some "bought and paid for white paper" somehow enabling corporations to fire even more U.S. workers....creates jobs.
It's just spin city and it wouldn't surprise me to see this come up as "jobs bill".
Last "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" this is precisely what they did....they increased tax deferrals and incentives to offshore outsource jobs.
We need to get to draft legislation as soon as possible and expose this BS that odds are will be similar.
We already know they refuse to reform trade agreements, they will not stop the tax incentives to offshore outsource jobs, they try to increase guest workers by claiming somehow that's "innovation" (while U.S. innovators are broke and unemployed), and even when awarding Stimulus contracts they are giving them to big MNCs, who are offshore outsourcing and no-bid contract award system, same one as used in Iraq.
They will not stop offshore outsourcing of Federal and State contracts....when we have double digit unemployment with a projected rise coming at us.
Also, on the "let's get rich in a start up front"...VCs are shutting down funds, it's really bad for venture capital right now and this is terrible for innovation and the "jobs of the future".
GE is awarding VC money but knowing GE I sincerely doubt they have "incorporated in the U.S. and must hire U.S. citizens" as a requirement for funding!
In fact there have been many reports of VCs requiring a start-up offshore outsource half of it's staff in order to receive funding. Not good!
We also have "macro" reports claiming the U.S. is a terrible return on investment assets ....that's real companies from where this is claimed.
It's like EEs (emerging economies) are such bubble and hype and as a result, that's where the money goes. It's almost like advertising branding.
I managed to confuse myself (not good when I'm reading these reports and writing blog posts on them!) between the guarantees program vs. the "cash" TARP.
Fortunately the error is just in the comments and not the actual blog post and I also put up another one on TARP with the actual projected losses.
Currently the projected losses from the $700 Billion are $200 Billion.
But! While Citigroup passed the lastest stress test, it's really unclear exactly how and they have the largest amount of funds.
GMAC failed the stress tests. It's in the post on using TARP to "pay down" the deficit....but I don't understand how that works since the TARP itself is borrowed money.
Seems like some accounting trickery that I'm unsure hits the taxpayer more? Unclear.
Also, I'm seeing some noise about GS manipulating the oil commodities futures markets. On this post which is making the "links" rounds.
Also included are our main TARP recipients.
Finally, I find it very interesting that the derivatives market is basically controlled by these 4 major players AND we cannot get meaningful reforms.
Anywho, to be clear, the guarantees program is projected to come up with a slight profit, abet I frankly don't trust much coming from the OMB. Hopefully SIGTARP will weigh in on that.
(Bloomberg) -- Neil Barofsky, the federal watchdog for the $700 billion financial industry bailout, said the program will “almost certainly” result in a loss to U.S. taxpayers.
“We need to temper or be realistic about our expectations,” he said today at the Bloomberg Washington Summit of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “It’s almost certainly going to be a loss.”
The other day I saw one economist projecting a 13% unenmployment rate but many are predicting 11%.
I also read one story where people called back from layoffs are getting their pay.....cut in half.
There is nothing they could do about this 50% "pay cut" because the job market is so bad.
So, let's see these projections claiming they don't need more money.
Do you know what the internals are with Fannie/Freddie/FHA after the ousting/semi-gov. takeover in terms of management, terms? They are seemingly still this black money hole.
As noted in my post, it appears Sirota found it, but this particular post that I wrote, ended up on the front page of raw story and was pushed to the top of reddit earlier.
Glad to see the video people picking up on this. It is really outrageous.
today. Let's hope for our sake there will be some serious action items that come out this summit and NOT more photo ops, empty rhetoric and soundbites.
I said back in April that we needed principal and interest forgiveness in order to address this foreclosure problem. But people that I was some pinko lefty with a bleeding heart - just kidding.
Eight months ago, the Obama administration launched a plan to help troubled homeowners avoid foreclosure by providing $75 billion in taxpayer funds to banks and mortgage servicers. The money was intended to help three to four million homeowners by lowering their monthly payments, largely by cutting their interest rates.
The next day, a Yale economist and a colleague penned a New York Times op-ed arguing for a different approach.
Rather than cut interest rates, John D. Geanakoplos and Susan P. Koniak wrote, the government should reduce the overall amount owed on the mortgage -- the principal.
"The plan announced by the White House will not stop foreclosures because it concentrates on reducing interest payments, not reducing principal for those who owe more than their homes are worth. The plan wastes taxpayer money and won't fix the problem," they wrote.
Looks like I wasn't alone. But it doesn't give me joy to know I was right back then because hundreds of thousands of people are experiencing and living hell right now with foreclosure hanging over their head. And as for Obama's program:
As many as 3.4 million homes are expected to enter foreclosure by year's end, with some experts estimating that next year will be even worse. As of Sept. 1, less than two percent of homeowners who received a temporary modification under Obama's plan ended up with a permanent fix. And so far, the plan has already cost taxpayers about $27 billion.
Only five of the 1,711 permanent modifications as of Sept. 1 involved a principal reduction -- in fact, most homeowners with a permanent fix ended up owing even more on their mortgage than they did before the modification.
The Obama Administration went out its way to protect the financial conglomerates at the expense of people with this plan (and many others). This is something I will never forget. Fu*k you Geithner and Summers!
Sadly, the USA has fallen well short of Carey's egalitarian ideals. Instead, we see that the pathological narcissism of capitalism, demonstrated in its full glory through globalization, is leaving hollowed out societies all over the world.
A recc'd diary on DailyKos has the video and transcript of Rachel Maddow blasting a recent campaign by U.S. corporate interests to stop a bill that would ban imports of goods made with slave labor or child labor. She really nails the Heritage Foundation also. She ends with this:
"Business interests and their think thanks friends on the right have every right to lobby on anything they want to. Think that Wall St, despite almost destroying the whole economy of the United States, should be left to it's own devices again? You know, go ahead, make your case, I'd love to hear it. Think that child labor and slave labor and forced convict labor are cheap and therefore cool with you, go ahead, make your case, I would LOVE to hear it. But unless you are going to make your case for things like that in total secrecy, know that the case against you is there to be made too, and that will apply to any member of Congress who sides with you as well, you child labor endorsing, pro slavery FREAKS!"
I hear many people at progressive sides worry about the "dangers" of protectionism. But there is NOTHING wrong with protecting your citizens from having to compete with people willing to accept the conditions shown by Lu Guang and Jonas Bendikse. It's what we used to do in America.
"Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits. One looks to increasing the quantity of raw materials to be exported, and diminishing the inducements to imports of men, thus impoverishing both farmer and planter by throwing on them the burden of freight; while the other looks to increasing the import of men, and diminishing the export of raw materials, thereby enriching both planter and farmer by relieving them from payment of freight. One looks to giving the {products} of millions of acres of land and of the labour of millions of men for the {services} of hundreds of thousands of distant men; the other to bringing the distant men to consume on the land the products of the land, exchanging day's labour for day's labour. One looks to compelling the farmers and planters of the Union to continue their contributions for the support of the fleets and the armies, the paupers, the nobles, and the sovereigns of Europe; the other to enabling ourselves to apply the same means to the moral and intellectual improvement of the sovereigns of America. One looks to the continuance of that {bastard} freedom of trade which denies the principle of protection, yet doles it out as revenue duties; the other by extending the area of legitimate free trade by the establishment of perfect protection, followed by the annexation of individuals and communities, and ultimately by the abolition of customs-houses. One looks to exporting men to occupy desert tracts, the sovereignty of which is obtained by aid of diplomacy or war; the other to increasing the value of an immense extent of vacant land by importing men by millions for their occupation. One looks to the centralization of wealth and power in a great commercial city that shall rival the great cities of modern times, which have been and are being supported by aid of contributions which have exhausted every nation subjected to them; the other to concentration, by aid of which a market shall be made upon the land for the products of the land, and the farmer and planter be enriched. One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of ELEVATING while EQUALIZING the condition of man throughout the world.
"Such is the true MISSION of the people of these United States. To them has been granted a privilege never before granted to man, that of the exercise of the right of perfect self-government; but, as rights and duties are inseparable, with the grant of the former came the obligation to perform the latter. Happily their performance is pleasant and profitable, and involves no sacrifice. To raise the value of labour throughout the world, we need only to raise the value of our own. To raise the value of land throughout the world, it is needed only that we adopt measures that shall raise the value of our own. To diffuse intelligence and to promote the cause of morality throughout the world, we are required only to pursue the course that shall diffuse education throughout our own land, and shall enable every man more readily to acquire property, and with it respect for the rights of property. To improve the political condition of man throughout the world, it is needed that we ourselves should remain at peace, avoid taxation for the maintenance of fleets and armies, and become rich and prosperous. To raise the condition of women throughout the world, it is required of us only that we pursue that course that enables men to remain at home and marry, that they may surround themselves with happy children and grand-children. To substitute true Christianity for the detestable system known as the Malthusian, it is needed that we prove to the world that it is population that makes the food come from the rich soils, and that food tends to increase more rapidly than population, vindicating the policy of God to man.... (pp.228-29)"
The last 8-10 years have shown meager job growth. Now, with the crisis the jobs hole is even deeper - EPI report estimated we need 127,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.
Even before the crisis we were seeing a huge shift in the labor market - completely away from manufacturing sector. The length of unemployment was creeping higher even before crisis. These are structural issues that are all made worse by the crisis.
If we choose to ignore them then we better be prepared for the serious socio-economic consequences.
If this is indeed true, why is the health care industry fighting this bill. What about the public option, isn't that the part of the bill that's going to keep the insurance companies honest. Seems the best move would be to retire in a country that provides universal health care. Maybe taxes would be onerous, but what's the difference if you're likely to lose everything to medical bills anyway.
I blame Greenspan and then I blame the structure of the Federal Reserve itself.
I wrote up a 1st pass review of Dobbs bill and he has some structural changes but separating the Federal Reserve from commercial/financial banking industry to me is critical.
About the only thing I can blame Ben for in all seriousness is the stonewalling on who received the $2 trillion dollars.
I blame Hank Paulson much more.
I'll look for your account info. (each must be approved).
Now comes the second shoe -- slooow recovery and mortgages that still exceed the value of the underlying assets. In the stock market, such a situation would have been cleared quickly with margin calls. But houses are both illiquid and wasting assets. There is now talk of strategic default on mortgages. But the financial elites are whistling past the over-leveraged houses.
Debt forgiveness is a somewhat foreign concept in our economic culture. It conjures up bankruptcy and dire circumstances. Yet the Fed, with its huge balance sheet, could allow a public agency to use the ultra-low cost of funds to create low-interest mortgages, giving homeowners an incentive to stay in their houses. OR we could have a nationl program to rate existing mortgages so that the true LTV ratio would depress the market value of those debts, and allow homeowners to buy back their mortgage at a discount via refinancing. It would also force the financial community to find those mortgages and match them to the properties. This is not debt forgiveness -- it is rather truth-in-mortgage debt, to allow a national reset of LTV ratios and allow homeowners to sell and move on. The banks would find a way to pass most of the cost back to the government, but that is not so different from a home-buyers tax credit or cash-for-junkers. Yes, it would make mortgage originators cautious in the future -- as they should have been in the Greenspan bubble years. It would deflate the debt ro its true value, let us move on and try getting back to a sane economy. Not easy, but possible and maybe a little more just.
Frank T.
Jobs were sacrificed in the interest of bipartisanship and moderation. It had to bold and innovative - it was neither. Now, we are left with the mess.
I also believe that Keynesian counter-cyclical polices can work but this poor example will doom Keynesian economics for another 30 years.
As for teabaggers, the people doing the protesting may have a point but the people behind the scenes particularly people like Dick Armey help create this mess the lead to the financial oligarchy bailout and this lame ass stimulus plan.
On Openleft, Chris Bowers was asking why not use TARP money for a WPA-type program. I said the proper question is
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
There, I said it. It's not that the Stimulus by itself was a bad idea, it's not. It's clear to me Keynesian stimulus does work.
The problem is how it was directed. They refused, simply refused to tie the money to income. Into the pockets of U.S. workers, into the domestic economy and providing jobs, income for U.S. workers.
That's what's wrong with it. I said at the time and I'll say it again, unless my mathematics ability leaves me on outer space, the Keynesian formula clearly shows government spending must be 1. put into the pockets of citizens in some fashion that also generates work/production 2. stays within the domestic economy that a government is responsible for.
Even of the little money supposedly to generate jobs....a lot has been offshore outsourced, they used a no-bid contract system....the same as Iraq, so we know there is waste, corruption and probably not the max. if any U.S. workers hired....and that money was also way too small.
i.e. they needed a jobs program from the get go, a real one.
U.S. workers for U.S. jobs in the U.S.A.
Now we have record unemployment with record deficits. Awesome.
and they wonder why the Tea Parties and those proclaiming low taxes and smaller government is such a movement. Of course it is because the government just gives money away to lobbyists and their clients...it's not using U.S. taxpayer money in the national interest and it's also not efficient. Who wants a government like this?
I'm a huge New Dealer type of political person or "big D" old school Democratic party type....
but I certainly understand the conservatives under these circumstances.
I can try or if you get the draft legislation, by hook or by crook, can you upload it here on EP and let's take a look at it?
Frankly, corporate lobbyists love to claim their agendas "create jobs" when in fact they offshore outsource even more jobs or bring in guest workers to displace American workers.
Then, we have "trade" agreements, which they will claim will "increase jobs"....when in fact they lose U.S. jobs.
Then, we have "business competitiveness" and (this is a research project) over and over again we get "tax credits" which are taken by corporations yet.....they never create jobs...nope, they ....layoff more people and create jobs overseas instead.
So, out of the lobbyists toolkit, it's standard fare for them to claim in some "bought and paid for white paper" somehow enabling corporations to fire even more U.S. workers....creates jobs.
It's just spin city and it wouldn't surprise me to see this come up as "jobs bill".
Last "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" this is precisely what they did....they increased tax deferrals and incentives to offshore outsource jobs.
We need to get to draft legislation as soon as possible and expose this BS that odds are will be similar.
We already know they refuse to reform trade agreements, they will not stop the tax incentives to offshore outsource jobs, they try to increase guest workers by claiming somehow that's "innovation" (while U.S. innovators are broke and unemployed), and even when awarding Stimulus contracts they are giving them to big MNCs, who are offshore outsourcing and no-bid contract award system, same one as used in Iraq.
They will not stop offshore outsourcing of Federal and State contracts....when we have double digit unemployment with a projected rise coming at us.
Also, on the "let's get rich in a start up front"...VCs are shutting down funds, it's really bad for venture capital right now and this is terrible for innovation and the "jobs of the future".
GE is awarding VC money but knowing GE I sincerely doubt they have "incorporated in the U.S. and must hire U.S. citizens" as a requirement for funding!
In fact there have been many reports of VCs requiring a start-up offshore outsource half of it's staff in order to receive funding. Not good!
We also have "macro" reports claiming the U.S. is a terrible return on investment assets ....that's real companies from where this is claimed.
It's like EEs (emerging economies) are such bubble and hype and as a result, that's where the money goes. It's almost like advertising branding.
I managed to confuse myself (not good when I'm reading these reports and writing blog posts on them!) between the guarantees program vs. the "cash" TARP.
Fortunately the error is just in the comments and not the actual blog post and I also put up another one on TARP with the actual projected losses.
Currently the projected losses from the $700 Billion are $200 Billion.
But! While Citigroup passed the lastest stress test, it's really unclear exactly how and they have the largest amount of funds.
GMAC failed the stress tests. It's in the post on using TARP to "pay down" the deficit....but I don't understand how that works since the TARP itself is borrowed money.
Seems like some accounting trickery that I'm unsure hits the taxpayer more? Unclear.
Also, I'm seeing some noise about GS manipulating the oil commodities futures markets. On this post which is making the "links" rounds.
Also included are our main TARP recipients.
Finally, I find it very interesting that the derivatives market is basically controlled by these 4 major players AND we cannot get meaningful reforms.
Anywho, to be clear, the guarantees program is projected to come up with a slight profit, abet I frankly don't trust much coming from the OMB. Hopefully SIGTARP will weigh in on that.
Reid's putting together a jobs bill in the Senate which they want to pass before the midterms.
The question is what's in the bill.
If it doesn't make sense, then chances are it is bullsh*t.
Folks, don't forget to rate up posts you would like on the front page.
For the site to work and the front page to showcase the best content, but change often, people have to uprate those posts.
Yes, posts get read in the queue because of the RSS feeds but people just showing up to the site, see the front page first.
Thanks for your participation!
uh huh. They know what policies to do. There are many economists, groups recommending them. Corporate lobbyists don't like them.
Let's see who is on the invite list. We have lobbyists trying to claim more job killing polices are "job creators" with some incredible spin.
Sounds right off the bat like PR. They have already gone against campaign promises on things that might create jobs.
I also saw Obama claim that insulating your house would somehow create jobs.
I'm getting pretty disgusted here Rebel, if you cannot tell. I already know you are.
The other day I saw one economist projecting a 13% unenmployment rate but many are predicting 11%.
I also read one story where people called back from layoffs are getting their pay.....cut in half.
There is nothing they could do about this 50% "pay cut" because the job market is so bad.
So, let's see these projections claiming they don't need more money.
Do you know what the internals are with Fannie/Freddie/FHA after the ousting/semi-gov. takeover in terms of management, terms? They are seemingly still this black money hole.
I've read many reports of people being given the run around, denied paperwork, lost paperwork...
so if it's not really helping anyone, why is it costing U.S. taxpayers at least $50 billion dollars?
I've also read reports claiming it has but only from the W.H.
As noted in my post, it appears Sirota found it, but this particular post that I wrote, ended up on the front page of raw story and was pushed to the top of reddit earlier.
Glad to see the video people picking up on this. It is really outrageous.
today. Let's hope for our sake there will be some serious action items that come out this summit and NOT more photo ops, empty rhetoric and soundbites.
Please prove me wrong Mr. President.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I said back in April that we needed principal and interest forgiveness in order to address this foreclosure problem. But people that I was some pinko lefty with a bleeding heart - just kidding.
Then you read stuff like this:
Looks like I wasn't alone. But it doesn't give me joy to know I was right back then because hundreds of thousands of people are experiencing and living hell right now with foreclosure hanging over their head. And as for Obama's program:
The Obama Administration went out its way to protect the financial conglomerates at the expense of people with this plan (and many others). This is something I will never forget. Fu*k you Geithner and Summers!
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Sadly, the USA has fallen well short of Carey's egalitarian ideals. Instead, we see that the pathological narcissism of capitalism, demonstrated in its full glory through globalization, is leaving hollowed out societies all over the world.
A recc'd diary on DailyKos has the video and transcript of Rachel Maddow blasting a recent campaign by U.S. corporate interests to stop a bill that would ban imports of goods made with slave labor or child labor. She really nails the Heritage Foundation also. She ends with this:
I hear many people at progressive sides worry about the "dangers" of protectionism. But there is NOTHING wrong with protecting your citizens from having to compete with people willing to accept the conditions shown by Lu Guang and Jonas Bendikse. It's what we used to do in America.
"Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits. One looks to increasing the quantity of raw materials to be exported, and diminishing the inducements to imports of men, thus impoverishing both farmer and planter by throwing on them the burden of freight; while the other looks to increasing the import of men, and diminishing the export of raw materials, thereby enriching both planter and farmer by relieving them from payment of freight. One looks to giving the {products} of millions of acres of land and of the labour of millions of men for the {services} of hundreds of thousands of distant men; the other to bringing the distant men to consume on the land the products of the land, exchanging day's labour for day's labour. One looks to compelling the farmers and planters of the Union to continue their contributions for the support of the fleets and the armies, the paupers, the nobles, and the sovereigns of Europe; the other to enabling ourselves to apply the same means to the moral and intellectual improvement of the sovereigns of America. One looks to the continuance of that {bastard} freedom of trade which denies the principle of protection, yet doles it out as revenue duties; the other by extending the area of legitimate free trade by the establishment of perfect protection, followed by the annexation of individuals and communities, and ultimately by the abolition of customs-houses. One looks to exporting men to occupy desert tracts, the sovereignty of which is obtained by aid of diplomacy or war; the other to increasing the value of an immense extent of vacant land by importing men by millions for their occupation. One looks to the centralization of wealth and power in a great commercial city that shall rival the great cities of modern times, which have been and are being supported by aid of contributions which have exhausted every nation subjected to them; the other to concentration, by aid of which a market shall be made upon the land for the products of the land, and the farmer and planter be enriched. One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of ELEVATING while EQUALIZING the condition of man throughout the world.
"Such is the true MISSION of the people of these United States. To them has been granted a privilege never before granted to man, that of the exercise of the right of perfect self-government; but, as rights and duties are inseparable, with the grant of the former came the obligation to perform the latter. Happily their performance is pleasant and profitable, and involves no sacrifice. To raise the value of labour throughout the world, we need only to raise the value of our own. To raise the value of land throughout the world, it is needed only that we adopt measures that shall raise the value of our own. To diffuse intelligence and to promote the cause of morality throughout the world, we are required only to pursue the course that shall diffuse education throughout our own land, and shall enable every man more readily to acquire property, and with it respect for the rights of property. To improve the political condition of man throughout the world, it is needed that we ourselves should remain at peace, avoid taxation for the maintenance of fleets and armies, and become rich and prosperous. To raise the condition of women throughout the world, it is required of us only that we pursue that course that enables men to remain at home and marry, that they may surround themselves with happy children and grand-children. To substitute true Christianity for the detestable system known as the Malthusian, it is needed that we prove to the world that it is population that makes the food come from the rich soils, and that food tends to increase more rapidly than population, vindicating the policy of God to man.... (pp.228-29)"
-- Henry C.Carey, The Harmony of Interests: Agricultural, Manufacturing & Commercial (1851)
Here's a youtube video of this quote being read:
The last 8-10 years have shown meager job growth. Now, with the crisis the jobs hole is even deeper - EPI report estimated we need 127,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.
Even before the crisis we were seeing a huge shift in the labor market - completely away from manufacturing sector. The length of unemployment was creeping higher even before crisis. These are structural issues that are all made worse by the crisis.
If we choose to ignore them then we better be prepared for the serious socio-economic consequences.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
If this is indeed true, why is the health care industry fighting this bill. What about the public option, isn't that the part of the bill that's going to keep the insurance companies honest. Seems the best move would be to retire in a country that provides universal health care. Maybe taxes would be onerous, but what's the difference if you're likely to lose everything to medical bills anyway.
Jesse
Ya know, of course it's possible, but I guess I went into denial to block it out of my mind...
although my rants on structural problems, I'm obviously beside myself with this administration, Congress and job creation.
But check out credit writedowns covering this economist's prediction.
I blame Greenspan and then I blame the structure of the Federal Reserve itself.
I wrote up a 1st pass review of Dobbs bill and he has some structural changes but separating the Federal Reserve from commercial/financial banking industry to me is critical.
About the only thing I can blame Ben for in all seriousness is the stonewalling on who received the $2 trillion dollars.
I blame Hank Paulson much more.
I'll look for your account info. (each must be approved).
Pages