Neurosurgeons aren't widely unemployed, and rocket scientists are a pretty narrow sample.  That's why I used the examples I did.  Both are broad professional categories that involve a lot of specialization.  Both are also cyclical in terms of employment.  Lawyers have an additional mobility hindrance as their licenses don't transfer state to state.  I'm trying to demonstrate that picking produce isn't a catch-all solution.  Yes it may be a good solution for some, but then we're having different rules for different classes, or we're having an absurd result.  I find the unemployment safety net to be a better approach.  It can't fix things for every panhandler but it prevents cyclical effects from swelling their ranks. 

So your basically saying what I did on the previous page.  I certainly never advocated for the elimination of social safety nets and never suggested picking produce as a silver bullet.  Nets are necessary, but true incentives to not depend on them are necessary as well.  Just because you went to law school does not entitle you to a profession in the legal field

Is that what your AM radio dial tells you?

 

I can't speak for that granola/grunge area of the country you choose to reside, but the Ohio Supreme Court has made it quite clear that my interpretation as to intent and application in Ohio is correct.

 

 

No, that is what my short wave, super heterodyne radio, and pirate radio station told me.

 

As for what the Ohio Surpeme Court told you I have no idea. 

 

 

Perhaps you could explain that to us?

 

 

 

Tedolph

We need people checking what the unemployed are doing each week to obtain gainful employment.  They need to do something (if they want their check), even if that is holding one of those closeout signs on the corner.  We need investigators rooting out all those under the table workers who are collecting UC while still technically employed.  For those who defraud or take advantage of the system, we need to have little sympathy.

 

Wow, I can't believe you of all people said that.  You know how quickly any sort of enforcement of this would blow up in terms of racial discrimination & ACLU lawsuits?  What's next, knocking on the doors of those in the housing projects to see what they are doing to get back on their feet?  Checking up on those who receive food stamps to make sure they are spending them wisely?  Holy crap, where would you stop in terms of enforcement?  And do you really think it's tea party people who are preventing this enforcement on argument of "no more big govt?"  How about the fact that these social programs are being carried out exactly as intended: mini-stimulus for a large percentage of the population.    Cutting this back through enforcement or otherwise would have alot of negative unintended consequences, and I doubt very little people would "get off the couch & find work".

 

Big picture, you open up a new department with 100 people on staff in Cuyahoga county to "enforce" this and other social welfare programs - how much money do you think you would actually "save" by weeding out the lazy folks and revoking their checks? 

 

Wow.  Just wow.  Can't believe you posted that.

 

As to the mini-stumulus comment, havent we figured out yet that "stimulus" doesn't work?

 

It might have when the textile mills and shoe factories in New England were humming in the 1950's but today all it does is support buying cheap shirts from China or paying down credit card balances, niether of which do anything to put U.S. citizens to work. 

 

 

Think about it this way, the stimulus programs have been very effective in creating jobs-in China!

 

We have serious structual problems with our enonomy.  The only way to generate wealth in a global economy is to make something here and sell it to soneone else.  Giving more money to poor people might eliviate their suffering but it is't gong to generate any jobs. 

 

As long as we allow the Chi-Coms to devalue their currency by 25% we are going to be in a continuing downward spiral.

 

 

Tedolph

 

 

 

There can't be full employment or there's no labor pool.  Unemployment compensation is therefore necessary to capitalism.  No, we do not need everyone picking onions in their downtime.  Using engineers and lawyers as itinerant vegetable pickers is absurdly wasteful.  If that's our system, our system is worthless.

 

The primary benefit is to the employer, not the employee who can always move somewhere else to where the jobs are (something we seem to have forgotten how to do).

 

Even in the real estate market of years past, few people could just up and move to wherever an immediate opening might appear.  That's like running around chasing herds of buffalo, a lifestyle involving houses you can roll up and carry.  People who live in modern houses have to sell them.  Even people living in apartments have to get out of the lease somehow, unless they're month to month, which most leases aren't.

 

Unemployment compensation is a cost effective way to deal with the commitments inherent in our property system.  When more people own their homes, it needs to go even longer, so it becomes less cost effective.  But that's not unemployment's fault.  The inefficiency, the bottleneck, is in the property arrangements.  But mass migration buffalo hunts aren't efficient either.  It makes no sense to have your population scrambling around the continent to stay afloat.  We're better off stimulating employment where unemployed people already are.

 

Sorry, history does not agree with you.  Aerospace engineers did the three city shuffle (Seattle; Burbank; St. Louis) for fourty years until Lockeed got out of the commercial aviation business and Boeing bought McDonald-Douglas.  For that very reason, many of them never bought houses but only rented, especially if they were single.

 

Agian, the benefit was to the employer.  Think about it, if the benefit was to the employee, why woud Boeing pay the premiums-they would have let the union do it.

 

 

Tedolph

 

 

Is that what your AM radio dial tells you?

 

I can't speak for that granola/grunge area of the country you choose to reside, but the Ohio Supreme Court has made it quite clear that my interpretation as to intent and application in Ohio is correct.

 

 

No, that is what my short wave, super heterodyne radio, and pirate radio station told me.

 

As for what the Ohio Surpeme Court told you I have no idea. 

 

 

Perhaps you could explain that to us?

 

 

 

Tedolph

 

Psshht... you could at least give me a challenge:

 

"The Act exists “'to enable unfortunate employees, who become

and remain involuntarily unemployed by adverse business and

industrial conditions, to subsist on a reasonably decent level and

is in keeping with the humanitarian and enlightened concepts of this modern day.’”

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

“‘The [A]ct act was intended to provide financial assistance

to an individual who had worked, was able and willing to work,

but was temporarily without employment through no fault or agreement of his own.’”

 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/1995/1995-ohio-206.pdf

 

Take special note what the holding of that case is..... if your skills are inadequate for the job, your employer may fire you for just cause and you are not entitled to UC.

 

For your support, perhaps you could find a podcast from last Sunday night?

McDonald-Douglas sound like they make tasty airplanes.

But I think this is the biggest propblem facing Americans today.  While unemployment is bad, and the time to find a new job just horrible, it's the drop in household income, particularly one of this magnatude and duration, that will keep this country stuck in a quagmire for a decade or more.

 

A great many of the pillars of our economic system are built of the model of ever-growing numbers of workers with an ever-growing income.  Social Security, home ownership, government expenditures, retirement savings, education debts, any borrowing for big-ticket items (cars, etc), etc, etc.  For the past 200 years the system has worked because those 2 inputs - ever-growing population and ever-growing incomes, has persisted most of the time.

 

...dont know about the past 200 years, but this was the Post WWII model.  Also, things like unemployment compensation, and other income support or supplement things also assumed lower rates of unemployment and living wages, so the hit on govt expenditures wouldnt be that high....now, we are running these big deficits because the more people qualify for aid...or, more importantly...are not paying that much back into the system.  Sort of a vicious cycle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator Portman is proudly promoting his vote against the jobs bill.  Fool

Is that what your AM radio dial tells you?

 

I can't speak for that granola/grunge area of the country you choose to reside, but the Ohio Supreme Court has made it quite clear that my interpretation as to intent and application in Ohio is correct.

 

 

No, that is what my short wave, super heterodyne radio, and pirate radio station told me.

 

As for what the Ohio Surpeme Court told you I have no idea. 

 

 

Perhaps you could explain that to us?

 

 

 

Tedolph

 

Psshht... you could at least give me a challenge:

 

"The Act exists “'to enable unfortunate employees, who become

and remain involuntarily unemployed by adverse business and

industrial conditions, to subsist on a reasonably decent level and

is in keeping with the humanitarian and enlightened concepts of this modern day.’”

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

“‘The [A]ct act was intended to provide financial assistance

to an individual who had worked, was able and willing to work,

but was temporarily without employment through no fault or agreement of his own.’”

 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/1995/1995-ohio-206.pdf

 

Take special note what the holding of that case is..... if your skills are inadequate for the job, your employer may fire you for just cause and you are not entitled to UC.

 

For your support, perhaps you could find a podcast from last Sunday night?

 

 

Wouldn't be the first time a Supreme Court was wrong about something. Again, why would an employer pay for it if it didn't ultimately benefit the employer?

 

As for yor podcast comment, I presume you are refering to the Republican debates.

 

What makes you think I would waste my time listenting to that pablum?

 

As for unemployment compensation for me, you are correct.  The self-employed are entitiled to nothing except to pay an extra 7.5% of SS tax!

 

Tedolph

Senator Portman is proudly promoting his vote against the jobs bill.  Fool

 

Really, I don't know how you get away with all the ad hominem attacks.

 

Are you capable of posting without making one?

 

TEdolph

Senator Portman is proudly promoting his vote against the jobs bill.  Fool

 

Really, I don't know how you get away with all the ad hominem attacks.

 

Are you capable of posting without making one?

 

TEdolph

 

Oh, now I get it, I thought he was just signing his post!

McDonald-Douglas sound like they make tasty airplanes.

 

Don't know about "tasty" but the MD-88 and MD-90 were fun to fly...., especially those MD90's.

Wouldn't be the first time a Supreme Court was wrong about something. Again, why would an employer pay for it if it didn't ultimately benefit the employer?

 

Because the law requires them to, silly.  (Channeling Denzel Washington).... you do remember the law, don't you?

Wouldn't be the first time a Supreme Court was wrong about something. Again, why would an employer pay for it if it didn't ultimately benefit the employer?

 

Because the law requires them to, silly.  (Channeling Denzel Washington).... you do remember the law, don't you?

 

 

Strnge that you don't understand this: the corporations write the laws.

 

 

TEdolph

You've spent too much time listening to the drum beating at OccupySeattle

How long is income inequality going to be ignored by... well, everyone?  Even Bloomberg understands it's a serious problem!

 

Growing Income Gap May Leave U.S. Vulnerable

By David J. Lynch - Oct 13, 2011 12:37 PM ET

 

A widening gap between rich and poor is reshaping the U.S. economy, leaving it more vulnerable to recurring financial crises and less likely to generate enduring expansions.

 

Left unchecked, the decades-long trend toward increasing inequality may condemn Wall Street to a generation of unimpressive returns and even shake social stability, economists and financial-industry executives say.

 

“Income inequality in this country is just getting worse and worse and worse,” James Chanos, president and founder of New York-based Kynikos Associates Ltd., told Bloomberg Radio this week. “And that is not a recipe for stable economic growth when the rich are getting richer and everybody else is being left behind.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/growing-income-divide-may-increase-u-s-vulnerability-to-financial-crises.html

How long is income inequality going to be ignored by... well, everyone?  Even Bloomberg understands it's a serious problem!

 

Growing Income Gap May Leave U.S. Vulnerable

By David J. Lynch - Oct 13, 2011 12:37 PM ET

 

A widening gap between rich and poor is reshaping the U.S. economy, leaving it more vulnerable to recurring financial crises and less likely to generate enduring expansions.

 

Left unchecked, the decades-long trend toward increasing inequality may condemn Wall Street to a generation of unimpressive returns and even shake social stability, economists and financial-industry executives say.

 

“Income inequality in this country is just getting worse and worse and worse,” James Chanos, president and founder of New York-based Kynikos Associates Ltd., told Bloomberg Radio this week. “And that is not a recipe for stable economic growth when the rich are getting richer and everybody else is being left behind.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/growing-income-divide-may-increase-u-s-vulnerability-to-financial-crises.html

 

As long as we have sexual and racial inequality, we'll have financial inequality.  Bases on my life, I see no problem with the way things are.

^You may not see a problem with the way things are, but I see a concerning trend.

 

 

Ask the French bourgeoisie how well that worked out for them.

 

If the middle class ceases to exist, Wall Street will find itself out of business very quickly. There won't be any money for people to purchase their goods and services.

If the middle class ceases to exist, Wall Street will find itself out of business very quickly. There won't be any money for people to purchase their goods and services.

 

 

And that has historically been the incentive for land reform, etc. in other couintires, not a bottom up incentive as many would like to believe.  The so called "rich" are well aware of the social and economic dangers of gross income maldistribution.  They just don't think (and I agree) that the solution is to take it from them by force and sprinkle it like pixie dust on the masses.  The Romans used to do that (remember bread and circuses) and it is not a long term solution.  The way to redistribute wealth in a meaningfull and long term way is to grow economic opportunity for the middle class and especially the poor-then you will see the rich investt in productive assets rather than paper speculation (very profitable in the short term).  The great increases in capital wealth by the rich is an indication of people making money pushing essentially worthless pieces of paper back and forth in a game of the last man to hold the bag.  It doesn't generate any real wealth and it is a game the rich play when there are no producitve assets (e.g. factories) to invest in. 

 

We have some really serious structual problems with our economy due to concious decisions we have made over the past 20 years (NAFTA, China MFNS, TARRP) which have made it impossible for us to be competitive, and attractive for the rich to engage in pure financial speculation.  The most egregious of these (all though they are all egregious) is the belief in "free trade" rather than "fair trade".  The Chinese and OPEC has been fleecing us for decades and finially it has brought us to our knees. 

 

This is the real cause of the so called "income gap".

 

Tedolph

 

Tedolph,

 

That was an excellent post. The one argument I have though is adjusting the tax rates to rational levels does not equate "taking by force"

 

Tedolph,

 

That was an excellent post. The one argument I have though is adjusting the tax rates to rational levels does not equate "taking by force"

 

Other than the loopholes which should be closed, I think that the marginal income tax rates are about right.  Also, people that aren't paying any tax (both rich and poor) need to pay tax.  Anyway, fixing the tax code, while it is a good thing to do  is not going to generate any jobs.  Let the rich keep more money and they will (right now) just keep investing in paper games.  Tax the rich more and somhow give it to the poor (send them checks?) and they will either buy cheap Chinese shirts from Walmart, or pay down credit card debt.  None of that will generate a single U.S. job, although it will be great for job growth  in China. 

 

We really need to fundamentally restructure our economy away from a consumption of goods economy, to an export economy.  That means we have to undo TARP (impossible, that horse is our of the barn), force China to stop devaluing its currancy (there is acutally some bi-artisan movement on that issue), maybe revoke most favored nation status (remember how tought we got with Japan?)  and start treating OPEC like the illegal monopoly that it is.  We only let the OPEC nations get away with what they do to keep the peace in the Middle East-somthing that is becoming a losing game of tennis.

 

I fear however that this is way above the heads of the "occupy_____movement" and certaintly isn't what their handlers have in mind.  The Tea Party was gettin close but then the social zealots took over that movement.

 

Oh, one more thing.  The current administration is so beholden on both wall street and the far Left (talk about being caught between polar extremes) that we can't expect any meaningful leadership from there, just more useless Keynsian economic stumulus and I am not convinced that the Republicans have the political balls to tell the American people the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

TEdolph

Another excellent post Tedolph.

 

Ever consider running for office?

 

 

It's tough for us to make it in the exporting of products game when our employers are forced to add 30% to nominal wages for healthcare while in other countries the government handles it or has no healthcare requirement at all.

^You may not see a problem with the way things are, but I see a concerning trend.

 

 

 

Until I have equal rights across the board, let them eat little debbie cakes and kick rocks!

It's tough for us to make it in the exporting of products game when our employers are forced to add 30% to nominal wages for healthcare while in other countries the government handles it or has no healthcare requirement at all.

 

You don't need to spend 30% for heath care.  I have been self employed for over 25 years.  I have a personal blue cross plan with a $1500.00 anual deductable that costs me $200.00/month.  Our employees have a gold plated plan that costs over $400.00 per month.  The difference? I pay for my plan out of after tax income so I have no incentive to overconsume, and an incentive to save my deductible.  The employees are paying with pre-tax income and it is taken out of thier check whether they like it or not so there is no oppotunity cost for them, and they have no disincentive for consuming as much as possible.  Again, government intervention has perverted the supply and demand system.

 

what is killing us for exports is that China is devaluing thier currency by about $25%.  That is equivalent to a 25% tariiff on all goods exported to China and a 25% discount on all imported goods.

 

TEdolph

^You may not see a problem with the way things are, but I see a concerning trend.

 

 

 

Until I have equal rights across the board, let them eat little debbie cakes and kick rocks!

Most of the people eating little debbie cakes and kicking rocks are minorities.

tedolph, I think the OWS people are pretty ticked about the "last man to hold the bag" games as well as free trade over fair trade.

 

No one likes TARP except politicians and Wall Street.

 

Until I have equal rights across the board, let them eat little debbie cakes and kick rocks!

 

Yes you do. You also have the right to stoop to their level of greed, which I hope you would not do, which also carries consequences of being lumped together with them as targets for the angry growing mobs of protesters.

It's tough for us to make it in the exporting of products game when our employers are forced to add 30% to nominal wages for healthcare while in other countries the government handles it or has no healthcare requirement at all.

 

You don't need to spend 30% for heath care.  I have been self employed for over 25 years.  I have a personal blue cross plan with a $1500.00 anual deductable that costs me $200.00/month.  Our employees have a gold plated plan that costs over $400.00 per month.  The difference? I pay for my plan out of after tax income so I have no incentive to overconsume, and an incentive to save my deductible.  The employees are paying with pre-tax income and it is taken out of thier check whether they like it or not so there is no oppotunity cost for them, and they have no disincentive for consuming as much as possible.  Again, government intervention has perverted the supply and demand system.

 

what is killing us for exports is that China is devaluing thier currency by about $25%.  That is equivalent to a 25% tariiff on all goods exported to China and a 25% discount on all imported goods.

 

TEdolph

 

I probably have the same exact plan for myself except with a $1000 deductible. But, we got rated individually. When you take a workforce in the aggregate, the costs become much higher due to people having babies, getting old, getting hurt etc. And, I agree with you that price-insensitive consumers are one of the main drivers in the increase of healthcare costs. But, it's still the system we deal with in the U.S., and there are a lot of companies paying an extra 30% or even more. Individual entrepreneurs/the self-employed, small and medium-sized companies don't get whacked as hard as the big boys. Once you start getting older and have a few health problems, individual insurance gets expensive as well.

The growing erosion of the middle class and the increase in the poverty in the US (and many other european nations) have historically been issues that has created some significant stability problems for many countries throughout world history. We must find ways to stabilize and regrow the middle class for the longer term stability of our country.

 

Police fire tear gas as protesters riot in Rome

 

"ROME (AP) — Italian police fired tear gas and water cannons as protesters in Rome turned a demonstration against corporate greed into a riot Saturday, smashing shop and bank windows, torching cars and hurling bottles.

The protest in the Italian capital was part of "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations against capitalism and austerity measures that went global Saturday, leading to dozens of marches and protests worldwide."

http://news.yahoo.com/police-fire-tear-gas-protesters-riot-rome-153335569.html

 

Record number of Americans living in poverty

 

"Last year, 46.2 million Americans lived in poverty--the highest total since record keeping began more than half a century ago, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/record-number-americans-living-poverty-211711911.html

 

 

 

^You may not see a problem with the way things are, but I see a concerning trend.

 

 

 

Until I have equal rights across the board, let them eat little debbie cakes and kick rocks!

 

That's a bit of a childish position to take... don't you think?

Apparently it needs to be said that 'general discussion' threads such as this are offered by the Admins as a courtesy.

Bases on my life, I see no problem with the way things are.

 

Translation:  "I've go mine, Jack!"

 

We have some really serious structual problems with our economy due to concious decisions we have made over the past 20 years (NAFTA, China MFNS, TARRP) which have made it impossible for us to be competitive, and attractive for the rich to engage in pure financial speculation.  The most egregious of these (all though they are all egregious) is the belief in "free trade" rather than "fair trade".  The Chinese and OPEC has been fleecing us for decades and finially it has brought us to our knees. 

 

This is the real cause of the so called "income gap".

 

Yeah, this is a good post.  I thought you are a conservative?  This is more thoughtful than the usual righty POV.

 

BTW, what you describe started before globalization, with manufacturing moving from the Midwest and Northeast to the Southeast, in search of low wages.    A supposedly good history of this, using one firm as an example, is Capital Moves,

RCA's Seventy-Year Quest for Cheap Labor

 

But yeah, what we are seeing is what was predicted that would come of globalization, the convergence in wages, salaries, and standards of living.  Convergence in our (USA) case meaning a reduction or lowering. 

 

 

 

 

Here is something from Andrew Sullivan :

 

Sullivans blog post refers to this recent history of wealth distribution

 

"....The decade from 1970–80 was the turning point in the Great American Inversion. ... By 1990, real incomes for the top 1 percent exceeded the 1920 level threefold and continued to rise thereafter, while those of the majority did not budge. Reversing the pattern of previous decades, the richer you were, the faster gains accrued. It did not matter if Democrats or Republicans were in charge of the White House or Congress. By 2007, the top 1 percent of households had almost five times the real income they had in 1920; the top 0.1 percent had around six times, and the top 0.01 percent were awash in nearly ten times the real income they had enjoyed nine decades earlier...."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The solution is simple, someone is going to eat a LOT of debt, its just a matter of who (public, private, combo). I really don't think Germany has the political support internally to bail the system out and France will face a downgrade by the rating agencies if they provide to much more financial support for more bailouts.

 

Germany Shoots Down ‘Dreams’ of Swift Crisis Fix

 

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made it clear that “dreams that are taking hold again now that with this package everything will be solved and everything will be over on Monday won’t be able to be fulfilled,” Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman, said at a briefing in Berlin today. The search for an end to the crisis “surely extends well into next year.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-17/germany-shoots-down-dreams-of-early-end-to-europe-sovereign-debt-crisis.html

...as I suspected and probably posted about somewhere earlier in this thread:

 

Army of unemployed is now entrenched in U.S.

 

Commentary: Structural woes in economy creating ‘permanent underclass’

 

But economists need hard data before changing their minds. And over the past few months, more and more of them have concluded that indeed the depth of this particular recession and its roots in the financial crisis have combined with structural changes in the economy to push the so-called “natural” unemployment rate in the U.S. permanently higher

On a related topic:

 

White-Collar Recession, Blue-Collar Depression

 

But one group has paid the biggest price: Blue-collar US manufacturing workers have suffered disproportionate job losses, and their plight has big implications for all of us.

 

In October, the overall US unemployment rate was 9.6%, while total unemployment and “underemployment” (including people who would prefer to work full time but currently aren’t) hovered around 17%.

 

 

...which is a big deal for a state like Ohio that had a lot of manufacutring going on.  Manufacturing employment in Ohio was dropping all through the 2000s until crashing through the floor during the recession.

 

 

Two years of kicking the can and now they are suppose to fix it in one week. Good luck. Here is my guess, they will provide some more hope, nice words a few more dollars and say they should have everything fixed early in 2012. The real problem is, debt levels have become unsustainable.

 

EU Given a Week to Fix Crisis as G-20 Warns of Global Threat

 

"European leaders have one week to settle differences and flesh out a strategy to terminate their sovereign debt crisis as global finance chiefs warn failure to do so would endanger the world economy.

 

Group of 20 finance ministers and central banks concluded weekend talks in Paris endorsing parts of the emerging plan to avoid a Greek default, bolster banks and curb contagion. They set an Oct. 23 summit of European leaders in Brussels as the deadline for it to be delivered.

 

“The risk of a recession would be increased dramatically were the Europeans to fail to accomplish goals that they’ve set for themselves,” Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said after the G-20 meeting, which ended Oct. 15."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-16/eu-given-one-week-to-fix-crisis-as-g-20-warns-world-economy-is-threatened.html

 

Tedolph,

 

That was an excellent post. The one argument I have though is adjusting the tax rates to rational levels does not equate "taking by force"

 

Other than the loopholes which should be closed, I think that the marginal income tax rates are about right.  Also, people that aren't paying any tax (both rich and poor) need to pay tax.  Anyway, fixing the tax code, while it is a good thing to do  is not going to generate any jobs.  Let the rich keep more money and they will (right now) just keep investing in paper games.  Tax the rich more and somhow give it to the poor (send them checks?) and they will either buy cheap Chinese shirts from Walmart, or pay down credit card debt.  None of that will generate a single U.S. job, although it will be great for job growth  in China.

 

There is basically no one in the country paying no tax.  Everyone pays sales taxes.  Everyone who is employed pays payroll taxes.  If you own real property, you're paying property taxes; if you don't, a substantial portion of it is subsumed into your rent.  The fact that we don't pile an income tax on top of people below a certain income level doesn't mean that such people pay no taxes, it just means that they pay less in taxes than six-figure earners.

 

We really need to fundamentally restructure our economy away from a consumption of goods economy, to an export economy.

 

Who is this "we" that's going to fundamentally restructure the entire economy, and who's going to show up with clubs to get the recalcitrant consumers and the businesses that cater to them into line?

 

That means we have to undo TARP (impossible, that horse is our of the barn), force China to stop devaluing its currancy (there is acutally some bi-artisan movement on that issue), maybe revoke most favored nation status (remember how tought we got with Japan?)  and start treating OPEC like the illegal monopoly that it is.  We only let the OPEC nations get away with what they do to keep the peace in the Middle East-somthing that is becoming a losing game of tennis.

 

TARP was a bad idea, definitely, but it has largely been repaid.  Actually, because of its catchy acronym, TARP got a disproportionate amount of the media coverage of the various bailouts.  In truth, TARP never disbursed its full $700 billion authorization, and what it did disperse was largely repaid.  The massive loan guarantees, collateral swaps, and other Federal Reserve backing of the bad debts of our new zombie-dinosaur banks were much larger and have a much larger lingering effect on the economy today.  (They are what is preventing the "creative destruction" that would normally be worked by market forces on our financial system, given the ill health of some of its central players.)

 

China floating the yuan would increase the competitiveness of American exports to China and decrease the competitiveness of Chinese goods here.  That would have almost no effect on our trade relationships with Mexico, the EU, or the rest of the world.  It would also quite possibly lead to a short-term surge of new capital fleeing the U.S. and heading to China, since the yuan would rise steadily but not instantly, making yuan-denominated assets attractive for a while because of the added currency-appreciation effect.  A more powerful yuan attracting more and more investment would also make China far more able to deploy its massive sovereign wealth to buy up strategic assets denominated in dollars, be those American corporations (or infrastructure) or dollar-denominated resources that we compete with China for in the global market.

 

I fear however that this is way above the heads of the "occupy_____movement" and certaintly isn't what their handlers have in mind.  The Tea Party was gettin close but then the social zealots took over that movement.

 

Actually, whatever else you might see about them, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-wonkiest-signs-from-occupy-wall-street/2011/08/25/gIQAV0CbrL_blog.html">the OWS movement has some of the wonkiest signs I've ever seen</a> ...

If you want to see a Tea Partier launch into orbit, suggest that renters DO pay property tax. 

renters already pay property tax.

From UK's "The New Statesman"

 

The Boom Was An Illusion

 

....The resulting damage over the past four years has been huge. The world economy contracted by 6 per cent between 2007 and 2009, and recovered 4 per cent. It is 10 per cent poorer than it would have been, had growth continued at the rate of 2007, and the pain is not yet over. Today, we are in the first stages of a second banking crisis. It may already be too late to avoid a "double dip", but it may still be possible to avoid a triple dip....

 

 

Ramen noodles and spam sales may see a nice uptick if this keeps going.

 

U.S. wholesale prices surge in September

Gasoline, vegetables propel 0.8% increase last month

 

"Yet consumer costs have also risen sharply over the past year. The consumer price index is up 3.8% over the 12 months ended in August, outstripping the increase in worker wages over the same span.

 

The result: many families have had to make do with less. That’s contributed to a weaker U.S. economy."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-wholesale-prices-surge-in-september-2011-10-18

 

Chanos: China’s hard-landing has already begun

China’s bust will be a thousand times worse than Dubai

 

“The numbers are falling faster than we thought,” said Chanos during an exclusive interview with MarketWatch on the sidelines of the 7th Annual New York Value Investing Congress.

 

“Real estate sales in September and October, which are peak months, fell 40%-60% on-year,” he said.

 

Chanos also pointed out that Chinese financial and real-estate stocks are down 30% from their peak, while cement and steel prices are declining."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chanos-chinas-hard-landing-has-already-begun-2011-10-17

The real question on Spain, is not will they become the next Greece, but when and how will it unfold.

 

Spain Feels the Housing Pain

 

"This makes Spain, in many senses, the worst case of a property bust in the developed world—the country is already deep in its third consecutive year of falling prices, with no rebounds.

 

Last year, the pace of decline slowed significantly, signalling some light at the end of the tunnel, but another metaphor is called for instead: that last year’s respite was nothing more than a dead cat’s bounce.

 

The good news should be the overall amount of the decline, since Spain’s government says prices are only down 18%, in nominal terms, since their peak in early 2008.

 

But that doesn’t include the effect of Spain’s persistent inflation, one of the highest in the euro zone, which makes the real drop closer to 30%—Spain’s government didn’t provide real price data in today’s release.

 

After earlier predictions of a short-term correction have been smashed, some analysts now say prices may keep falling for the next two years, eroding Spain’s household wealth and banking balance sheets.

 

Meanwhile, banks are struggling to keep up with the loss in value of the collateral against €400 billion worth of loans to construction and real estate firms, an amount that remains unchanged since 2008."

http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/10/18/spain-continues-to-feel-the-housing-pain/

Foreclosure rates up 14 per cent amid fears home values will plummet again

 

"More foreclosure filings were reported this quarter because of a quick jump in the number of default notices, meaning bad news for the U.S. economy as home prices are expected to drop as a result.

 

Banks have stepped up the pace of home seizures after a year-long slowdown brought on by the 'robo-signing' scandal in which banks were accused of seizing properties without a proper review of loan documents.

 

"The increase was driven by a 14 per cent jump in default notices, the first gain in five quarters and a sign lenders were preparing to step up repossessions of homes.

 

Foreclosure filings began dropping off in September of last year as major lenders halted property seizures to ensure their paperwork was in order housing prices have begun to stabilize and shift higher in recent months.

 

The S&P Case-Shiller index of home values in 20 U.S. cities rose 0.9 per cent in July, its fourth straight monthly increase, as 17 of the cities posted gains. Despite the improvement, it remained 4.1 per cent below its year-ago level."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048981/Foreclosure-rates-14-cent-means-bad-news-housing-market.html#ixzz1bALYVm5M

^ Millions of people are in for a rude awakening when banks go after them for the difference if they let a house go because it's not worth what it was. They can go after the many years later.

Saw this on FB - found it rather interesting (yet simple) in how it explained US Debt.

Discuss