I'll look around and see if there are some photos of folks currently camping out or whatever. I know they're out there ... their situations addressed mostly by local volunteers (like churches) ... but they try to keep a low profile.
In the US's historical past the Druids have used and impressed upon the US leadership to use mineral resources to stop economic warfare, along with military take over. Some simple examples of the economic warfare strategy of mineral rushes to spread the US out and create US wealth to get us out of a Deficit situation are Fort Sumter. Where a long time Druid camp had made noticeable their secret chambers ability to gain wealth from the area via mass pys do name cognition. Alaska was before or after Fort Sumter but was done by the US government the same way to help US citizens create tons and spread out the wealth in the US. Along with get us out of a deficit during that time. The reason for both of these was because Russia at the time was planning to invade the Area's and take them from US. In which we had to do something to stop them from doing that. Along with that during the Cold War the US used production mineral rushes to keep our production and manufacturing here in the US. Which allowed companies to have down the road access to minerals which was much cheaper than the Soviet Empire almost monopoly on the worlds resources.
Today we see a similar problem. The Communist Chinese MSS have used their militarized economy. Where they do such military things as fund terrorist and genocidal dictators to get cheap resources to keep their economy at the top of the surplus and everyone else who will not do such military acts as funding the atrocities do not get to compete internationally with very noncompetitive prices. We have seen many companies complain in the US how they can;'t get access to resources in the US for a competitive overhead. Nor can they get them from US private enterprises. So they just off shore to Communist China. Which I have cited on this website many articles that state that is what the SASAC wished to do. Which was create a resource monopoly bind so everyone had to just offshore to their country. Leaving the world without jobs and the Communist Chinese with the monopoly on rare earth resources.
Along those lines, we have seen the militarized economy of the Communist Chinese use their MSS agents at a mass quantity to constantly use lobbying and IP espionage activities. So the US believes it is a good idea to allow them to take our resource national security issues from us. Even though they have been known to cheat, kill and bribe to maintain a monopoly for theirs. Therefore, we can see how the Russian's who I do not have access to their activities at that time can be analogized to the Communist Chinese. As they both had a similar idea of using the mass to enslave to a single party then use very noncompetitive non individual liberty prices to take the US's business from them so as to weaken our economy and force closure of bases, along with intelligence agencies and create a necessary need to allow the Communist Single Fascist party to come in and control the US's economy via their resource monopoly.
As such, as we have done historically the way out of the deficit and the way to stay competitive in the world market is to start a resource rush. However, unlike gold which is not as expensive as some rare earth resources. We need to create a resource supply that is not necessarily gold but a gold mine. Like we did during Fort Sumter, Alaska and various areas during the cold war. This then could be done via a simple strategy. The strategy could be to allow three mine permits per state. Which could be for rare earth resources. These mines could be smaller mines around a quarter mile each and producing around 66 million a mine. Therefore, we would see a major influx of US jobs and economy as the US companies ownership of mines should that we have minerals for companies to create good paying jobs. Thus then allowing for a proper root style economic rebuild naturally through economics instead of forced through a stimulus. That will just fall through as our high number of business keep defecting each year to Communist China's resource monopoly.
Rider I
http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisiii.blogspot.com/
Competition builds more markets while monopolization destroy's markets. Rider I 2011
/ii\
I think the Constant violation of the Communist Party of China deserves sanctions for arming Qaddafi when fighting against UN troops as:
US seeks more from China on Libya arms
I believe there is a Communist Secretary in every business and entity in Communist China. "The United States indicated Wednesday it is not satisfied with China's explanation of a meeting in July between Chinese weapons makers and representatives of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi seeking to buy arms in violation of U.N. sanctions." Let's see the Communist Party violates UN treaties with regards to Iran, North Korea, Al Queada, Hamas, then specifically sell's weapons via a Party secretary entity of the Communist Party which is in every SOE watching over them and speaking to the party on first hand of business. Along with allowing nuclear material in areas of how terrorism like Pakistan and Iran. I think we should sanction them. Along with that they violate UN treaties with regards to funding and protecting genocidal dictators. The worst part is they just do it to get cheap resource contracts that nobody else can get. Along with that they sent a Communist disciplinary member to meet with Poland instead of a Diplomat, which the German Socialist Party did and So did the Soviet Empire.
You've got the quicktabs which is an additional piece of code that displays the right hand block on new posts, last read and so on, but it's not a permanent link.
the meta tags are permanent links.
Not idea, I think I need to redo a lot on this site, all sorts of great detailed writings but they are too hard to find.
Be nice is some artist did a new photograph series on people now. I know there are still tent cities around.
I happened to flip on the daily show and saw this guy, shocked there was someone in the GOP field speaking some truth.
He needs to get more specific on policies and plans but so far, much better than than all of the rest.
Love your thumbs Okey. ;)
I also figured since EP is a news source, high page rank, easily found in Google and so on, giving this guy just a little more Internet love so people can find him might help level the field.
The only way Roemer will win in the GOP is if the RNC machine is soundly defeated ... and, come to think of it, that would be a welcome dancing-in-the-streets turn of events!
What bothers me the most, not that I don't believe there are many people not counted anywhere who need a job, I know that is true, but the BLS gives a direct survey question to those who are not counted, "do you want a job" and gives the answer as a separate statistic. Now we can argue day and night about the survey itself and error rates and so on, but in ratio to the non-institutional civilian population, this number hasn't spiked up, as I would expect it would have.
So, that's where I want to know more about this long term discouraged estimate from the "Not in the labor force" calculation going on.
Not saying though that shadow stats doesn't have a point and on CPI, I think it's damn useful to look at individual categories and that substitution basket myself.
I mean when one is at hamburger, there ain't a lot more substitution, or wait, America is getting really fat....could it be that fat is mega cheap to buy? hmmmm.....
Anyway, I can't actually do a comparison of JOLTS to shadow without the raw numbers.
Bear in mind there is a lot of criticism on the CES survey too, but this is a separate survey on hires, fires, openings.
He doesn't publish his methods, so I can't get to what percentage of the not in the labor force he is claiming are long term discouraged. How is he estimating that, what are his definitions, assumptions and what raw numbers he is using as well.
There is another issue with using the base Census non-institutional population estimates and everything else in the CPS survey is based on that estimate. It's off, everything else is off in many ways. Regardless, if you look at the rate of change the situation is bad, period. The unemployment stats are still operating statistical estimates from the 2000 Census survey, not 2010.
I went through a lot of calculations in this post, What is the Real Unemployment rate, showing what definitions I used, what others are probably using and then described the number cranking.
I'd like to find some research or something from the Census (vs. the BLS who just use the Census data), on the non-institutional population estimates and see what using the 2010 Census base does.
I think this post using U-6 though is fair game, statistically valid, because all of those who are part-time for economic reasons means they want and need a full-time job, so I'll assume that means they are looking for one. Discouraged workers also while not counted, report looking for a job recently as well.
Also, as far as I know job openings from JOLTS are just any type of job, it doesn't mean full time jobs.
The day shadow stats makes public his methods is the day I'll check it out, but since only the BLS data is publicly available, with definitions and methods published, I'm sticking with that.
Me personally, if there is an error it's nice to be able to find it and at least show how someone is deriving a number instead of making it seem like they pulled it out of their ass.
Good God, they all loved Bernanke when he was helping bail out the banks and now that Bernanke actually has said a few things that make economic sense, namely monetary policy can't fix the jobs crisis and this administration, Congress needs to do something, boy oh boy they are doing a hangin' fruit, hatchet job on him.
Don't people realize both parties are controlled by Goldman Sachs, that Tim Geithner was part of the New York Fed doing bail outs before Treasury, that regardless of party, Bankster bail outs are guaranteed?
Have you tried to figure out the openings per unemployed using shadowstats.com numbers (23.8%) yet? John Williams measures unemployment per the pre-1994 BLS standards. I'm sure it's even worse that what you portray here.
I think a lot of the moves to China have to do with capital, financialization and also the mythical 1.4 billion consumer market. I also think, these days, "sales" in terms of promoting manufacturing in China is better than finding competent manufacturing in the U.S. It exists but in terms of potential customers finding it, it's harder. I'm thinking of the smaller scale niche products.
I'm going to dig into the details on this and write something up.
Very good series and I noticed ABC is much more willing to report economic stories from working America's viewpoint.
If you click on that video link at the top here, all of them are in order. I guess I need to give some better site organization so by topic they can be more easily found.
That's the point of FMN, to easily find documentaries, videos on economic related topics.
"...infamous "it's cheaper" if made from China didn't hold water."
Then what is the motivation to manufacture in China if it can be made at the same cost in the US and not have to pay transportation cost of ship the product from China to the US? Is Apple manufacturing in China just because of EE (whatever that is - Wall Street something).
Does retrofit house mean capital or consumer goods. Did they walk down the aisle of WalMart and compare the cost of weekly goods bought by a typical family make in China vs. US?
If there is a You Tube of the ABC report I would love to see it - Friday Night Movie would be great.
and write it up. Intuitively, as a "stimulus", I think this "tax cut" makes little sense. The issue is jobs, job creation, job hiring, in the United States and we've seen correlation after correlation that tax cuts do not create jobs. Esp. tax cuts to the employee side. It might give a little extra to boost consumer spending, but that's not the #1 issue here.
Also, Okey mentioned FTA foreign guest worker Visas. It's true they are part of some of the trade agreements, but that's just the type and availability. There is no requirement that foreign workers are imported as part of a trade agreement.
So, in other words, the idea of putting immigration status conditions on any jobs generated in a Stimulus should be free and clear of any trade agreement complications. It would be all corporate lobbyists and their agendas.
Right now, we have corporate lobbyist "article plants" daily, in the financial press, trying to claim worker displacement, especially in the skilled areas, helps the economy. It does not. When you have all sorts of talent with U.S. citizenship going broke, unable to find work to apply their craft, that is not good for the U.S. economy and that is the situation.
It's so bad, NCG (new college grads) are going on TV and organizing to try to fight for at least funding to start a business. Why? Because VC funds are rare and they cannot get that entry level job either. Add to that we have in masse, age discrimination, so they are laying to waste all sorts of talent simply because they are over the age of 35 and 50 is a wasteland, simply due to their age.
Its a conspiracy to get rid of Social Security by underfunding. Next is the Norquist approach. The 12 member Masters of the Universe - Deficity Commission - will conclude, aw shucks, we just have to get rid of Social Security entirely - the next 4.2 %
Supposedly $100 billion for the "payroll" tax cut, which is employee side and reduces FICA, which are payments into SS.
I've seen multiplier claiming this helps, but frankly it's by me when the issue is jobs, plus social security is under direct attack....so gee, let's underfund it.
It's only an indirect employer cost reduction but that's if they reduce wages. lovely.
I'll try to go through some of these but we need GDP multipliers that hit 2.5, not ~1.2 here, esp. with all of America poed at "spending".
No, I'm saying the GSA knows about the Buy American Act, which already exists, so claiming one cannot enact a Buy America condition in another Stimulus isn't true. there isn't a conflict.
What you do is either go to the municipal level or you keep the contract awards below the WTO GPA threshold level, or whatever else you can rig up to bypass the absurdity of NAFTA/WTO. ;)
I don't mean you are GOP of U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I'm implying the defeatism that a Stimulus cannot be architected to be completely focused into the domestic economy and it's citizenry, even with the pathetic excuse of trade agreements, isn't valid.
That said, I recall the Obama administration issuing waiver after waiver, which beyond the fact that $200 of the $787 B was useless tax cuts, another $100 B for AMT, and I don't recall the percentage for UI expansion, but very little was left for any sort of direct jobs, or the type of directed investment + jobs sort of thing needed.
On top of that, money just poured out of the United States and the point of this post is beyond the housing/residential real estate/construction collapse, America has been hemorrhaging jobs for over a decade.
So, of course the U.S. should repeal NAFTA, get out of the WTO and renegotiate all trade agreements, something Hillary committed to in the primaries and obviously Obama lied his head off because he was going to lose, due to the rust belt, midwest wanting that done....
but in the meantime there are ways to legislate some strong Buy American into a Stimulus.
I doubt that fundamental conflict between USA (or global) economic recovery and the WTO system can be forestalled much longer.
There may be nothing said in the GPA about citizenship as a requirement for a government training program, but does that assure that the WTO would not find an implied or embedded visa right for the training and administrative staff -- not to mention electronic outsourcing? Often, the best jobs in stimulus programs are the training and administrative positions.
Free trade agreements (called FTAs) such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) receive a lot of public discussion because of the immense effect they have on our economy, but very few people understand that these agreements are about much more than trade and the exporting of jobs. Global trade agreements come with the extra baggage sometimes referred to as "embedded visas."
FTAs contain embedded visas because immigration is often used as a bargaining chip during trade negotiations. Pressure for visas comes from multi-national corporations seeking to import cheap labor, from special interests that want access to foreign markets, and from pro-immigration groups who have a variety of agendas.
Give me a break! I am citing the agreement itself not to run down stimulus or Keynesian economic policy but to run down the fiction that we are in any way bound by WTO 'law'.
(I am also incidentally pointing out the Uruguay Round's acceptance, IMO, of general tariffs up to 15%, and it's true that I have a monetarist skepticism about Keynesian policy generally.)
I am not saying NO to stimulus, I am saying --
END THE HYPOCRISY ABOUT THE WTO!
WTO IS A PAPER TIGER!
What are you saying? -- that because nobody follows this 'law' therefore we should be afraid to challenge it in the sands surrounding its foundation?
Am I guilty by association of the political posturing of any and all who have ever cited the text of a WTO agreement? The institution of slavery was once defended by quoting from the King James Version, but that did not give Henry Clay a copyright on the Holy Bible!
Your disagreement is with the letter of the GPA or with the WTO, not with me!
I have cited nothing but the agreement itself. Okay?
Your approach is two-pronged -- "Hire American" and "Buy American". But aren't you asking USA to fight in the marketplace with one arm tied? True, the WTO famously "allows" us our migration barriers but the WTO also promotes global labor arbitrage. Apologists for the system of unrestrained flow of global capital have long decried the lack of provisions for 'free' flow of labor in the WTO system as the primary failure of that system -- and something that will eventually be 'fixed' in pursuit of the destruction of labor standards.
Meanwhile, it appears that the "Buy American" side is where the best bang for the buck can be found.
On the "Hire American" side, of course, if the stimulus were all government employment, that would be proof against any attack under color of the WTO's GSA. Unfortunately, by the letter of the GSA (use of the catch-all term "entities" and consistent language including "services" as well as "products"), any attempt to contract out stimulus employment with a "Buy American" provision, even to non-profits, would be contrary to commitments made on our behalf in 1995 -- unless we would allow foreign-owned entities to participate equally in bidding on the projects involved (e.g., training). Indeed, foreign-owned entities might even claim 'anti-discrimination' preferences of some kind!
If some of the stimulus would be going to Nissan USA at USA facilities, for example, that would be fine ... but we must be ever vigilant in these stimulus packages not to open up opportunities for scammers. At least, any scammers should be entities with a real stake in the USA economy -- not foreign-based raiders! My point is that all this should be decided by the Congress without reference to WTO 'law' -- and my position is the opposite, I think, of the smiley-face idiocy of so-called 'free traders' among the congressional GOP.
Of course, none of these commitments have been authorized by treaty, but that hardly makes them beyond criticism -- particularly since Federal courts may enforce them.
I do appreciate your points about possible exceptions allowed in WTO 'law', although I am uncomfortable with WTO quasi-judicial forums deciding those exceptions in secret sessions on an arbitrary basis, as they do.
"That's a fundamental problem. There needs to be a shift to look at America's middle class as producers, not just some hapless group of credit card crazed shoppers." -- Robert Oak
Thank you for pointing out that the Chamber and their political puppets make WTO objections to jobs legislation without also demanding withdrawal from the WTO! And they do so even while supporting enactment of Panama, Korea and Columbia FTAs!
The question today is whether Republican populists will join with progressive Democrats in sufficient number to defeat the FTAs this year, or not.
Sometimes I forget just how hypocritical the professional GOP (RNC) and their Dempublican allies (current DNC) can be. They have been a$$inine hypocrites on trade since Dole's vote for NAFTA. Of course, 'neo-con' intellectuals have always advocated against protectionism, but at the grass roots level, Republican 'conservatives' and Democrat 'moderates' have never come square with the people, and they have been trying to cover their sorry arses about that since they were called out by Perot in 1996.
Like an unpopular emperor, the GOP elephant parades in a new suit of clothes every other year ... but even a child can see the dirty behind for what it is.
While 'moderate' Democrats continue to cower in the shadows, 'conservative' Republicans, at least, maybe are becoming more honest about their anti-American politics. If we take them at their word, Republican leaders in Congress today have elevated their 'right' to be corrupted by foreign lobbyists to the level of a principle.
Thanks for "tagadelic" tip.
I'll look around and see if there are some photos of folks currently camping out or whatever. I know they're out there ... their situations addressed mostly by local volunteers (like churches) ... but they try to keep a low profile.
In the US's historical past the Druids have used and impressed upon the US leadership to use mineral resources to stop economic warfare, along with military take over. Some simple examples of the economic warfare strategy of mineral rushes to spread the US out and create US wealth to get us out of a Deficit situation are Fort Sumter. Where a long time Druid camp had made noticeable their secret chambers ability to gain wealth from the area via mass pys do name cognition. Alaska was before or after Fort Sumter but was done by the US government the same way to help US citizens create tons and spread out the wealth in the US. Along with get us out of a deficit during that time. The reason for both of these was because Russia at the time was planning to invade the Area's and take them from US. In which we had to do something to stop them from doing that. Along with that during the Cold War the US used production mineral rushes to keep our production and manufacturing here in the US. Which allowed companies to have down the road access to minerals which was much cheaper than the Soviet Empire almost monopoly on the worlds resources.
Today we see a similar problem. The Communist Chinese MSS have used their militarized economy. Where they do such military things as fund terrorist and genocidal dictators to get cheap resources to keep their economy at the top of the surplus and everyone else who will not do such military acts as funding the atrocities do not get to compete internationally with very noncompetitive prices. We have seen many companies complain in the US how they can;'t get access to resources in the US for a competitive overhead. Nor can they get them from US private enterprises. So they just off shore to Communist China. Which I have cited on this website many articles that state that is what the SASAC wished to do. Which was create a resource monopoly bind so everyone had to just offshore to their country. Leaving the world without jobs and the Communist Chinese with the monopoly on rare earth resources.
Along those lines, we have seen the militarized economy of the Communist Chinese use their MSS agents at a mass quantity to constantly use lobbying and IP espionage activities. So the US believes it is a good idea to allow them to take our resource national security issues from us. Even though they have been known to cheat, kill and bribe to maintain a monopoly for theirs. Therefore, we can see how the Russian's who I do not have access to their activities at that time can be analogized to the Communist Chinese. As they both had a similar idea of using the mass to enslave to a single party then use very noncompetitive non individual liberty prices to take the US's business from them so as to weaken our economy and force closure of bases, along with intelligence agencies and create a necessary need to allow the Communist Single Fascist party to come in and control the US's economy via their resource monopoly.
As such, as we have done historically the way out of the deficit and the way to stay competitive in the world market is to start a resource rush. However, unlike gold which is not as expensive as some rare earth resources. We need to create a resource supply that is not necessarily gold but a gold mine. Like we did during Fort Sumter, Alaska and various areas during the cold war. This then could be done via a simple strategy. The strategy could be to allow three mine permits per state. Which could be for rare earth resources. These mines could be smaller mines around a quarter mile each and producing around 66 million a mine. Therefore, we would see a major influx of US jobs and economy as the US companies ownership of mines should that we have minerals for companies to create good paying jobs. Thus then allowing for a proper root style economic rebuild naturally through economics instead of forced through a stimulus. That will just fall through as our high number of business keep defecting each year to Communist China's resource monopoly.
Rider I
http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisiii.blogspot.com/
Competition builds more markets while monopolization destroy's markets. Rider I 2011
/ii\
I think the Constant violation of the Communist Party of China deserves sanctions for arming Qaddafi when fighting against UN troops as:
US seeks more from China on Libya arms
I believe there is a Communist Secretary in every business and entity in Communist China. "The United States indicated Wednesday it is not satisfied with China's explanation of a meeting in July between Chinese weapons makers and representatives of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi seeking to buy arms in violation of U.N. sanctions." Let's see the Communist Party violates UN treaties with regards to Iran, North Korea, Al Queada, Hamas, then specifically sell's weapons via a Party secretary entity of the Communist Party which is in every SOE watching over them and speaking to the party on first hand of business. Along with allowing nuclear material in areas of how terrorism like Pakistan and Iran. I think we should sanction them. Along with that they violate UN treaties with regards to funding and protecting genocidal dictators. The worst part is they just do it to get cheap resource contracts that nobody else can get. Along with that they sent a Communist disciplinary member to meet with Poland instead of a Diplomat, which the German Socialist Party did and So did the Soviet Empire.
/ii\
I need to merge meta tags but in the mean time, you see that Tagadelic in the menus at the top?
Click on that and then click on any of those words. It should bring up all posts, or all Instapopulists (they are not merged) on a particular topic.
Example, clicking on food stamps gives this:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/category/topic-meta-tags/food-stamps
You've got the quicktabs which is an additional piece of code that displays the right hand block on new posts, last read and so on, but it's not a permanent link.
the meta tags are permanent links.
Not idea, I think I need to redo a lot on this site, all sorts of great detailed writings but they are too hard to find.
Be nice is some artist did a new photograph series on people now. I know there are still tent cities around.
That's the power of corporate money in politics.
I happened to flip on the daily show and saw this guy, shocked there was someone in the GOP field speaking some truth.
He needs to get more specific on policies and plans but so far, much better than than all of the rest.
Love your thumbs Okey. ;)
I also figured since EP is a news source, high page rank, easily found in Google and so on, giving this guy just a little more Internet love so people can find him might help level the field.
Try getting the hunger rate!
"I mean when one is at hamburger, there ain't a lot more substitution." -- Robert Oak
Try getting an objective measure of the hunger rate USA!
Dorothea Lange's famous photograph "MIgrant Mother" (1933), New Deal project for photographic documentation (Library of Congress) via Wikipedia --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg
Or try getting hunger rates anywhere ... by the time you get the best measure, which is mortality due to hunger or malnutrition, it's too late.
Probably the best measure in USA at this time is Food Stamp participation rate.
See Robert Oak blog (4 August 2011, and earlier) "44,587,328 People are on Food Stamps in the United States" at --
EP "food stamps" category tab --
http://www.economicpopulist.org/taxonomy/term/1567/0?quicktabs_1=3
The only way Roemer will win in the GOP is if the RNC machine is soundly defeated ... and, come to think of it, that would be a welcome dancing-in-the-streets turn of events!
(with the DNC soon to follow!)
What bothers me the most, not that I don't believe there are many people not counted anywhere who need a job, I know that is true, but the BLS gives a direct survey question to those who are not counted, "do you want a job" and gives the answer as a separate statistic. Now we can argue day and night about the survey itself and error rates and so on, but in ratio to the non-institutional civilian population, this number hasn't spiked up, as I would expect it would have.
So, that's where I want to know more about this long term discouraged estimate from the "Not in the labor force" calculation going on.
Not saying though that shadow stats doesn't have a point and on CPI, I think it's damn useful to look at individual categories and that substitution basket myself.
I mean when one is at hamburger, there ain't a lot more substitution, or wait, America is getting really fat....could it be that fat is mega cheap to buy? hmmmm.....
Anyway, I can't actually do a comparison of JOLTS to shadow without the raw numbers.
Bear in mind there is a lot of criticism on the CES survey too, but this is a separate survey on hires, fires, openings.
He doesn't publish his methods, so I can't get to what percentage of the not in the labor force he is claiming are long term discouraged. How is he estimating that, what are his definitions, assumptions and what raw numbers he is using as well.
There is another issue with using the base Census non-institutional population estimates and everything else in the CPS survey is based on that estimate. It's off, everything else is off in many ways. Regardless, if you look at the rate of change the situation is bad, period. The unemployment stats are still operating statistical estimates from the 2000 Census survey, not 2010.
I went through a lot of calculations in this post, What is the Real Unemployment rate, showing what definitions I used, what others are probably using and then described the number cranking.
I'd like to find some research or something from the Census (vs. the BLS who just use the Census data), on the non-institutional population estimates and see what using the 2010 Census base does.
I think this post using U-6 though is fair game, statistically valid, because all of those who are part-time for economic reasons means they want and need a full-time job, so I'll assume that means they are looking for one. Discouraged workers also while not counted, report looking for a job recently as well.
Also, as far as I know job openings from JOLTS are just any type of job, it doesn't mean full time jobs.
The day shadow stats makes public his methods is the day I'll check it out, but since only the BLS data is publicly available, with definitions and methods published, I'm sticking with that.
Me personally, if there is an error it's nice to be able to find it and at least show how someone is deriving a number instead of making it seem like they pulled it out of their ass.
Good God, they all loved Bernanke when he was helping bail out the banks and now that Bernanke actually has said a few things that make economic sense, namely monetary policy can't fix the jobs crisis and this administration, Congress needs to do something, boy oh boy they are doing a hangin' fruit, hatchet job on him.
Don't people realize both parties are controlled by Goldman Sachs, that Tim Geithner was part of the New York Fed doing bail outs before Treasury, that regardless of party, Bankster bail outs are guaranteed?
Have you tried to figure out the openings per unemployed using shadowstats.com numbers (23.8%) yet? John Williams measures unemployment per the pre-1994 BLS standards. I'm sure it's even worse that what you portray here.
I think a lot of the moves to China have to do with capital, financialization and also the mythical 1.4 billion consumer market. I also think, these days, "sales" in terms of promoting manufacturing in China is better than finding competent manufacturing in the U.S. It exists but in terms of potential customers finding it, it's harder. I'm thinking of the smaller scale niche products.
I'm going to dig into the details on this and write something up.
On ABC news, I already did a FMN, link is here.
Very good series and I noticed ABC is much more willing to report economic stories from working America's viewpoint.
If you click on that video link at the top here, all of them are in order. I guess I need to give some better site organization so by topic they can be more easily found.
That's the point of FMN, to easily find documentaries, videos on economic related topics.
"...infamous "it's cheaper" if made from China didn't hold water."
Then what is the motivation to manufacture in China if it can be made at the same cost in the US and not have to pay transportation cost of ship the product from China to the US? Is Apple manufacturing in China just because of EE (whatever that is - Wall Street something).
Does retrofit house mean capital or consumer goods. Did they walk down the aisle of WalMart and compare the cost of weekly goods bought by a typical family make in China vs. US?
If there is a You Tube of the ABC report I would love to see it - Friday Night Movie would be great.
and write it up. Intuitively, as a "stimulus", I think this "tax cut" makes little sense. The issue is jobs, job creation, job hiring, in the United States and we've seen correlation after correlation that tax cuts do not create jobs. Esp. tax cuts to the employee side. It might give a little extra to boost consumer spending, but that's not the #1 issue here.
Also, Okey mentioned FTA foreign guest worker Visas. It's true they are part of some of the trade agreements, but that's just the type and availability. There is no requirement that foreign workers are imported as part of a trade agreement.
So, in other words, the idea of putting immigration status conditions on any jobs generated in a Stimulus should be free and clear of any trade agreement complications. It would be all corporate lobbyists and their agendas.
Right now, we have corporate lobbyist "article plants" daily, in the financial press, trying to claim worker displacement, especially in the skilled areas, helps the economy. It does not. When you have all sorts of talent with U.S. citizenship going broke, unable to find work to apply their craft, that is not good for the U.S. economy and that is the situation.
It's so bad, NCG (new college grads) are going on TV and organizing to try to fight for at least funding to start a business. Why? Because VC funds are rare and they cannot get that entry level job either. Add to that we have in masse, age discrimination, so they are laying to waste all sorts of talent simply because they are over the age of 35 and 50 is a wasteland, simply due to their age.
Its a conspiracy to get rid of Social Security by underfunding. Next is the Norquist approach. The 12 member Masters of the Universe - Deficity Commission - will conclude, aw shucks, we just have to get rid of Social Security entirely - the next 4.2 %
Supposedly $100 billion for the "payroll" tax cut, which is employee side and reduces FICA, which are payments into SS.
I've seen multiplier claiming this helps, but frankly it's by me when the issue is jobs, plus social security is under direct attack....so gee, let's underfund it.
It's only an indirect employer cost reduction but that's if they reduce wages. lovely.
I'll try to go through some of these but we need GDP multipliers that hit 2.5, not ~1.2 here, esp. with all of America poed at "spending".
No, I'm saying the GSA knows about the Buy American Act, which already exists, so claiming one cannot enact a Buy America condition in another Stimulus isn't true. there isn't a conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_American_Act
What you do is either go to the municipal level or you keep the contract awards below the WTO GPA threshold level, or whatever else you can rig up to bypass the absurdity of NAFTA/WTO. ;)
I don't mean you are GOP of U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I'm implying the defeatism that a Stimulus cannot be architected to be completely focused into the domestic economy and it's citizenry, even with the pathetic excuse of trade agreements, isn't valid.
That said, I recall the Obama administration issuing waiver after waiver, which beyond the fact that $200 of the $787 B was useless tax cuts, another $100 B for AMT, and I don't recall the percentage for UI expansion, but very little was left for any sort of direct jobs, or the type of directed investment + jobs sort of thing needed.
On top of that, money just poured out of the United States and the point of this post is beyond the housing/residential real estate/construction collapse, America has been hemorrhaging jobs for over a decade.
So, of course the U.S. should repeal NAFTA, get out of the WTO and renegotiate all trade agreements, something Hillary committed to in the primaries and obviously Obama lied his head off because he was going to lose, due to the rust belt, midwest wanting that done....
but in the meantime there are ways to legislate some strong Buy American into a Stimulus.
I doubt that fundamental conflict between USA (or global) economic recovery and the WTO system can be forestalled much longer.
There may be nothing said in the GPA about citizenship as a requirement for a government training program, but does that assure that the WTO would not find an implied or embedded visa right for the training and administrative staff -- not to mention electronic outsourcing? Often, the best jobs in stimulus programs are the training and administrative positions.
See, article by Rob Sanchez in The Social Contract, Vol. 14, Number 2, "Embedded Visas -- 'Free Trade' Means a Flow of Workers Across Borders" --
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1402/article_1200.shtml
Robert Oak,
Give me a break! I am citing the agreement itself not to run down stimulus or Keynesian economic policy but to run down the fiction that we are in any way bound by WTO 'law'.
(I am also incidentally pointing out the Uruguay Round's acceptance, IMO, of general tariffs up to 15%, and it's true that I have a monetarist skepticism about Keynesian policy generally.)
I am not saying NO to stimulus, I am saying --
END THE HYPOCRISY ABOUT THE WTO!
WTO IS A PAPER TIGER!
What are you saying? -- that because nobody follows this 'law' therefore we should be afraid to challenge it in the sands surrounding its foundation?
Am I guilty by association of the political posturing of any and all who have ever cited the text of a WTO agreement? The institution of slavery was once defended by quoting from the King James Version, but that did not give Henry Clay a copyright on the Holy Bible!
Your disagreement is with the letter of the GPA or with the WTO, not with me!
I have cited nothing but the agreement itself. Okay?
Your approach is two-pronged -- "Hire American" and "Buy American". But aren't you asking USA to fight in the marketplace with one arm tied? True, the WTO famously "allows" us our migration barriers but the WTO also promotes global labor arbitrage. Apologists for the system of unrestrained flow of global capital have long decried the lack of provisions for 'free' flow of labor in the WTO system as the primary failure of that system -- and something that will eventually be 'fixed' in pursuit of the destruction of labor standards.
Meanwhile, it appears that the "Buy American" side is where the best bang for the buck can be found.
On the "Hire American" side, of course, if the stimulus were all government employment, that would be proof against any attack under color of the WTO's GSA. Unfortunately, by the letter of the GSA (use of the catch-all term "entities" and consistent language including "services" as well as "products"), any attempt to contract out stimulus employment with a "Buy American" provision, even to non-profits, would be contrary to commitments made on our behalf in 1995 -- unless we would allow foreign-owned entities to participate equally in bidding on the projects involved (e.g., training). Indeed, foreign-owned entities might even claim 'anti-discrimination' preferences of some kind!
If some of the stimulus would be going to Nissan USA at USA facilities, for example, that would be fine ... but we must be ever vigilant in these stimulus packages not to open up opportunities for scammers. At least, any scammers should be entities with a real stake in the USA economy -- not foreign-based raiders! My point is that all this should be decided by the Congress without reference to WTO 'law' -- and my position is the opposite, I think, of the smiley-face idiocy of so-called 'free traders' among the congressional GOP.
Of course, none of these commitments have been authorized by treaty, but that hardly makes them beyond criticism -- particularly since Federal courts may enforce them.
I do appreciate your points about possible exceptions allowed in WTO 'law', although I am uncomfortable with WTO quasi-judicial forums deciding those exceptions in secret sessions on an arbitrary basis, as they do.
"That's a fundamental problem. There needs to be a shift to look at America's middle class as producers, not just some hapless group of credit card crazed shoppers." -- Robert Oak
Yeah.
Thank you for pointing out that the Chamber and their political puppets make WTO objections to jobs legislation without also demanding withdrawal from the WTO! And they do so even while supporting enactment of Panama, Korea and Columbia FTAs!
The question today is whether Republican populists will join with progressive Democrats in sufficient number to defeat the FTAs this year, or not.
Sometimes I forget just how hypocritical the professional GOP (RNC) and their Dempublican allies (current DNC) can be. They have been a$$inine hypocrites on trade since Dole's vote for NAFTA. Of course, 'neo-con' intellectuals have always advocated against protectionism, but at the grass roots level, Republican 'conservatives' and Democrat 'moderates' have never come square with the people, and they have been trying to cover their sorry arses about that since they were called out by Perot in 1996.
Like an unpopular emperor, the GOP elephant parades in a new suit of clothes every other year ... but even a child can see the dirty behind for what it is.
While 'moderate' Democrats continue to cower in the shadows, 'conservative' Republicans, at least, maybe are becoming more honest about their anti-American politics. If we take them at their word, Republican leaders in Congress today have elevated their 'right' to be corrupted by foreign lobbyists to the level of a principle.
Pages