United States Heading towards a Depression?

mindlessnation and little willy always complaining / cursing about socialism and communism which in their mind is the Hollywood movies version about bad/ruthless/Godless Russian soldiers. Read Capital by Karl Marx or the simpler version manifest Communism and you will see your stats and the development of Capitalism society is in line with Marx predictions.

 

Gworld: Maybe it is in line w/ those writings. Clearly though, Communism as practiced by the USSR, China before becoming more attuned to private capitalism, N Korea or Cuba didn't work at all in terms of creating a wealth that would be distributed to the people.

Now china calls itself a communist nation, but its wealth creation is a function of using many capitalist perspectives, and its 4 largest banks are part of the International fortune 500 largest institutions, as are its power company. I don't know of a nation that used outright communism that built wealth for its population. Meanwhile the Chinese regime, while focusing on market production, and calling itself Communist is also a dictatorial entity.

OTOH, I don't believe the outright BS that capitalism is the only thing that creates wealth. The nations that sit on oil are wealthy and create wealth. In most cases the oil industry's are not private but govt controlled. The wealth flows in. If you sit on incredibly valuable resources and can unearth them and sell them you can make money whether you are a communist, capitalist, socialist, or a red headed slut. It doesn't matter what you call your economic system.

 

The final part of my observations of large US businesses in this recession is that these businesses in the aggregate are doing fine. They had an incredible surge in profits as of 1st quarter 2010. They also had an incredible surge of liquidity, putting away more cash than at any other time. The mega businesses that define the fortune 500 and fortune 1000 are restoring profits and hoarding cash and doing so at record breaking levels.

What they aren't doing is hiring people. That is why what is good for these businesses is not necessarily good for the economy as a whole and not good for the large unemployment figures. They are making money but not hiring.

The right wing attacks Obama for bad unemployment figures. Well if you want more hiring possibly Obama could:

A) Force them to hire (he isn't) (that would be socialism, btw)
B) Tax them for not hiring (he isn't) then use the tax receipts to create hiring
C) Create tax credits that specifically relate to hiring (that is an idea that directly impacts hiring)
D) Other things
E) Wait out the recession hoping for some kind of recovery that will spur hiring
F) Develop policies that spur investment in certain areas (uh oh, with the death of energy legislation last week....there goes a policy that the power companies directly said would have led to immense investment and hiring)

Don't blame unemployment on Obama. Its a residual of the immense recession that blew up in the last administration and now the US is hamstrung in creating jobs.

My observations are in line with this article citing the experiences of several companies: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/b...=ig&adxnnlx=1280142095-ye4UGHeNAQJ1PtLWLRdMww

 

@BW, don't you have anything better to do than "waisting everyones" (sic) time with your baseless insults? As prescribed before, find a real life for yourself, BW.

 

Very true. China has no problem whatsoever with allowing capitalism to flourish under communism´s watchful eye.

 

Don't insult the writings of Marx around Gworld. He may not believe in the bible, but I suspect those books work in a very similar way for him.

Sure. Just look at all the wealth Nigeria has generated for it's people.

From your above list, A and B are completely unacceptable, D is undefined, E is doing nothing, and F is government redistribution of wealth and meddling in private enterprise(picking winners and losers). That leaves C, which seems like a fairly good idea. The question is, why hasn't he done it. What we got instead was legislation that borrowed a trillion dollars from tax payers to keep government employees employed for another year while the rest of the nation had to suck up lower wages or unemployment.

Let me throw a few ideas out there.

1) Decrease labor supply(Cut off most H1B visas, temporarily lower all other forms of legal immigration, deploy the military to the border to kill off illegal immigration, and enforce Arizona style laws in every state to thin the herd that is already here)
2) Tighten rules around M&A to slow the process of consolidation. Consolidation may yield better earnings for stock holders when market expansion by other means is not possible, but from my layman's view of economics, it has helped to create these behemoths. Perhaps the problem is just that we have redefined what is and is not anti-competitive activity in the last 50 years.
3) Cut regulation on small employers. I'm talking DRAMATIC cuts for organizations employing less than 50 people. You want to encourage hiring and more competition, make it easier for new competitors to enter the marketplace.

 

Yes, but... how do you suck the money out of politics in a way that is in the best interests of the incumbents? It's like the fantasy of term limits - the career politicians in Congress will never vote for it. The theory of "the politics of self-interest" says that a politician will always vote against a bill this is against their own self-interests.

The U.S. Congress is the quickest way to making your fortune by doing nothing. Congresshumans set up overseas bank accounts, non-profit organizations, PACs, all to rake in the money of influence that lobbyists can shovel with both hands. The golden question is, how do you get a politician to vote against all that money?

I like that, BW, I really do. But there's no transparency when it comes to illegal money, is there?

 

Communism has got nothing to do with different governments and the same is true about Capitalism. If USA or west Europe are Capitalist economies then why do they have so much protectionism policies? Why are Republicans against illegal immigrants, shouldn´t the capitalists be able to hire the cheapest laborers?
Marx defined Communism as higher economic system which follows Capitalism, the same as Capitalism replaced the previous production systems. Marx was not against or hated Capitalism. Communism would be impossible without full development of Capitalism and that is the reason, in a way Marx and Engels predicted G8, G20, NAFTA and EU and talked about world market and world Capitalism. Communism was never supposed to be in one country.

The Communist Manifest

 

Fair elections are the heart of Democracy - when the outcomes can be disputed rather than the ensuing legislation the process itself loses the merit for its inception. I would suggest the influence of special interest must be insured to be equal among all participants but allow them to have their own parameters.

This country does enjoy a "free for all" mentality that is not necessarily unhealthy.

The second quarter surprisingly has so far proved as solid and expansive. The question begs if October will follow suit.

The Midterms may very well revolve around the October reports and the rate of unemployment - If the Dow remains above 10,000 the Republicans will not capture either legislative branches of Gov't and the higher above 10,000 the fewer the losses for the Democrats.

 

I guess you missed the "Illegal" part?

Capitalism avoids Socialism by putting certain rules into affect that insure a Monopoly cannot exist. Business under capitalism is privately owned and the price by which you do business is determined by supply and demand, as well as other market forces; competition primarily.

The "protectionism" as you call it is in place to insure that the model survives. I know its hard for someone like you to grasp this concept, or to understand the conundrum in which "some" government control is necessary in order to keep the government from taking TOTAL control. Without some controls, we'd end up reverting back to feudalism, or worse.

 

I am so not surprised to hear you quoting the communist manifesto, chapter and verse. In answer to your questions:

Would you mind enlightening us on how US policies are any more protectionist in any way than practically any other country on the planet? Having been involved in the import and export of goods, US tax policies are some of the least protectionist I've seen. Costa Rica charges more than 100% import duties on many products, and almost never under 30%. Compare that to the majority of US duties that come in at around 1%.

Why are Democrats against illegal immigrants? Why are the Chinese against Illegal immigrants? Why are the Cubans against illegal immigrants? You make it sound like only Republicans are against illegal immigration.

This seems to be a rallying cry amongst the few communists who are still around. According to them(and you), It failed because people tried to implement it within a single country. From all the evidence I've seen, communism works best at an organizational level just above a family. The Jews seem to do pretty well with their Kibbutzs. Its rather comic to see people like yourself promoting communism as a successful structure for a worldwide economy after its repetitive failure at any level above that of a community.

 

Obamanation: Your suggestion B is the Hitler suggestion. Hitler blamed the German depression on Jews and moreover preached for a pure race of Germans. It is apparant to all that the right wing includes those that are deeply filled with hate and racism. With this suggestion you place yourself squarely in the middle of the world's most racist haters.

 

LOL.

This is such ridiculous post for anyone who understands the meaning of the words that you just casually use that if ignorance was a crime, you would at least get a life time sentence.

 

What a load of crap. We've done it before. It wasn't racist then, it isn't now. At best, you could call it xenophobic.

Lets not forget, I'd temporarily stop the flow of Irish as well. I'm also not blaming immigrants for anything. I simply pointed out that temporarily cutting down the number we accept would decrease labor supply in this country. Decreasing the supply of anything drives up the price.

The rest of the pro-Arizona ab1070 people seem to be focused on the other obvious benefits of such an action such as:

• Decrease in violent crime on border cities
• Decrease in government costs associated with the incarceration of, and the care for the poor and impoverished

While all that is true, and perhaps more specifically true in application to a specific group of illegal immigrants arriving at our southern borders, I'm looking purely at the financial benefits. For all the companies that feel the lack of cheap American labor will drive the costs of their profits up, let em send the work overseas and see how that effects their bottom line in this economy.

As a pro-union guy, I figured you would be all over something that raises wages for the working class in America.

 

I realize English is a second language for you. Would you prefer I write this in your native language next time?

 

Capitalism does not have its own country.

 

Just to set the record straight. I'm not a pro-union guy, as you state. I'm not an anti-union guy either.

I am against the non stop attacks on unions by the Right Wing. Its one of the most misleading facts in American political and economic debate.

Here are facts.

Per recent data union membership amongst the American workforce is less than 13% of the workforce.

In the 1940's and 1950's Union membership in the labor force was over 30% and over 25% respectively. Union membership has rapidly decreased over the decades. It has minimal impact on American productivity and competitiveness in that it is so minimal.

Of even greater interest is that union membership within the private economy (as opposed to public emloyees) is dramatically lower at less than 10% of the private workforce.

The fewer union workers there are the more the Right Wing screams about them.

ONation when you cited the bailout of GM you widely distorted union equity in the new deal. Union participation is 17% not the "almost 50%" you claimed. Either a political outright lie or the comments from someone who simply doesn't know any of the facts and decides to turn it into an ignorant political attack.

Of recent interest Ford, with a unionized workforce and a total wage rate (wages and benefits) that is slightly higher than that of non-unionized foreign auto makers in the US (about $5/hour when considering wages and benefits) just had its best profit quarter in 12 years. It did so while selling less cars than in the past.

Meanwhile here is a recent editorial op ed including comments from a professor of economics that notes the same things I noted earlier: Big US companies are doing very well with profits and liquidity: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502770.html

Here are some interesting quotes and figures from the article by economic writer Robert Samuelson:

OMG: In the midst of this recession big business is doing fine.

and lastly:

(Hm this guy Gordan thinks that immigrants have an impact on weakening bargaining power of unions (immigrants--not defined as legal or illegal). (take your pick O_Nation....attack immigrants or attack unions...ha ha its one or the other..not both)

Frankly unions are not the cause for problems in the American economy. They're numbers are shrinking and continue to shrink. They have an ever more minimal impact on the American economy.

Come on Right Wingers, find a real culprit to the problems with the US economy not some false bull shit issue that simply leads to horrible policy that is predicated on nothing but politics and ignores reality.

 

Not sure what you mean or imply by this

I don't have the golden answer on how to suck the money out of politics. But, with all the anger against government in general right now, expressed by the rise in the Tea Party, and the anger against incumbants in general, its too bad, IMHO the political voices that helped articulate and focus this anger didn't address the money issue in politics. Of course, Corwin, I acknowledge that the political class in power overwhelmingly doesn't want to change the system of raising money. It would lead them into unknown territory.

I bet, though, if you polled ex politicians, they would overwhelmingly vote to change the impact of money on politics. Most of them have to be grossed out by the process. (that is if they have any integrity, IMHO)

 

- The last paragraph details the direct contributions by the individual executives - just why the Supreme Court (5 Republican justices) gave a ruling allowing these same individuals exclusive rights to decide matters of corporate political considerations over precedent for including the general sentiment of all employees by prohibiting such contributions simply illustrates Republican self directed entitlements superseding fairness in their basic philosophy. As a willingness to use the Supreme Court for political gain over the well being of the nation as a whole.

A pure example of back room politicking using the Supreme Court as a vehicle for special interests.

 

Blah blah blah. I appreciate your facts, as I stated clearly in my previous post. Lets just not ignore the gigantic mess Unions have created in a variety of places, including the State of California and GM. Regarding GM specifically, the 45% number was a number being bandied about during negotiations. I never bothered to follow up to find out what the final settlement number was, and frankly, it is irrelevant. The problem with the GM settlement is that it was reached by a political process rather than a legal one. I would figure you would take issue with that as well.

Better than fine. I thought this was one of the things you were pointing out as troubling. Did I misunderstand your point?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but by reading it, it sounds like you are quoting an economics professor that is saying exactly what I am saying. Lets cut to the chase. More labor in the market(Immigrant, legal, illegal, or otherwise) gives employers power in a negotiation. Less labor in the market gives negotiating power to the labor force, union or otherwise. I'm glad to see that both you, and this professor of economics agree with me on this.

Perhaps not in the private sector, but they have literally ruined the public sector in California.

Now this is worth addressing. If I were to recant the history of our recent conversation in this thread, it went like this:

• You made some good points about the consolidation GDP within the fortune 500
• I respond in agreement and make some recommendations on how to improve the negotiating power of labor without the use of labor unions
• You respond by calling me a racist (this is standard fare in any political discussion these days)
• I respond by pointing out the lack of racial motivation and the real financial benefits of my proposal
• You respond by changing the topic to the benefits of labor unions and asking why the right is so focused on attacking unions, while tacitly admitting economics professors agree immigration has an impact on the negotiating power of American labor
• You wrap up by accusing "right wingers" of creating bull shit issues while not focusing on the problem

Now I understand the need to politicize things in an election year, but if you are going to do that, you really need to avoid agreeing with me, even when you know I am right.