"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:00:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...



Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of
how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting
jobs,
i havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
first attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is
that
it will take me at least six or seven months of steady research before
I
have anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear
answer, even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and
incomes
going both ways.

--
Ed Huntress


you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet
another massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on
ideology
when they started this instead of having any idea how it was going to
turn
out.

It's theory. It begins with the theory of comparative advantage (it's not
what most people think -- don't confuse it with *absolute* advantage, as
the
terms are used in economics).

This a particularly good place to start. "Comparative advantage"
assumes that the means of production are fixed within a country,
and the question is what should these means of production be used
to produce. As soon as the means of production,[manpower,
machinery, material, methods and money] especially capital are
free to move, "comparative advantage" disappears and only
absolute advantage remains. It should be noted that one of the
shibboleths of the "brave new world order" is the free flow of
capital, thus it is an oxymoron to invoke "comparative advantage"
in the current conditions.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
snip
Ricardo explicitly bases his argument on an assumed immobility of
capital:

" ... if capital freely flowed towards those countries where
it could be most profitably employed, there could be no
difference in the rate of profit, and no other difference in the
real or labour price of commodities, than the additional quantity
of labour required to convey them to the various markets where
they were to be sold."[3]

He explains why from his point of view (anno 1817) this is a
reasonable assumption: "Experience, however, shows, that the
fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the
immediate control of its owner, together with the natural
disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his
birth and connexions, and entrust himself with all his habits
fixed, to a strange government and new laws, checks the
emigration of capital."
snip

Other problems with traditional analysis of "comparative
advantage" are the shift from counter trade to money, and the
existence of three trading partners, one of which "hogs" all the
benefits. FWIW -- in physics a three body problem is
indeterminate.

For my analysis of why "comparative advantage" does not apply in
the current milieu see pages 200-211
http://mcduffee-associates.us/dissertation/compdsrt.pdf


That's a great explanation of comparative advantage, George. I think I've
said that to you before. g

Anyway, you know that there is one group of economists who try to embellish
Ricardo's idea, and another group who try to find out more about the
patterns that it describes, which have often been supported. In the latter
category are the Heckscher-Ohlin model, the New Trade Theory that won
Krugman his Nobel, and the New New Trade Theory...all based on a Ricardian
outcome. Now the job is to explain why it keeps happening, despite all of
the complications.



Then they can show pretty good correlations between growth of GDP and
trade
liberalization -- at least, among equally developed countries. Then they
can
show job growth in a free-trade regime.

Who gives a flying flip about GDP/GNP? The increasing GINI
coefficient clearly shows the rich are getting richer and poor
are getting poorer.

It may be of more interest to you (and to me, which is why I'm working on
it) but that has little to do with growth in GDP.


If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
all there is.

In a nutshell the high skill high pay manufacturing jobs are
replaced by low skill low pay service jobs to reduce direct
costs. Then legal and illegal immigrants are admitted in large
numbers to do the low skill/low pay service jobs to keep the
wages/costs down. The problem is that your high skill / high
wage employees are some one else's customers (and taxpayers), and
when everyone does this, they kill the goose that laid the golden
eggs.

Mostly myth. The numbers don't hold up, George. That's why it's a dilemma. I
spent months with it already, a few years ago, and all of those theories
were undercut at every turn.

In fact, to say it simply, not much has happened to change those
relationships at all -- at least, none that isn't explained by rather large
improvements in productivity.


The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
there's much more to account for.
Loss of benefits and shift to contract/temp work are also a
factor. Loss of job security and forced career change/relocation
are other major problems.

It's complicated.

Indeed it is, but follow "Deep Throat's" advice, "follow the
money," and cut the crap.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Anyway, maybe, and I'm really curious to see what would happen if we let
all of the derivatives and hot air out of the balloon. It's like standing
on an ice flow in the Bering Sea and wondering what would happen if it
started to break into little pieces.

--
Ed Huntress


Corporate war games:

Scenario, deratives cause a major meltdown. The government decides to let
wallstreet sort out thier own mess, approves total deregulation.
Wallstreet is on its own.
No infusion of taxpayer money to wallstreet. Government bails out people
and extends unemployment pay indefinitely at 90%
of the workers base pay until they find work. Federal usury law passed
limiting intrest to 5% a year, fees and penalties for late
payments are outlawed. Executive compensation is limited to no more than 1
million dollars a year total.

Speculate ????

I wouldn't even try. g Interesting ideas, though.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:00:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
all there is. The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
there's much more to account for.
snip
========
In this context you may find the following article of interest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/...dlcHJhdHRjYQ--
snip
HARTFORD, Conn. - A federal U.S. judge ordered jet engine maker
Pratt & Whitney to halt its plans to move 1,000 jobs out of
Connecticut and to Japan, Singapore and the state of Georgia.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a
permanent injunction, stopping the company's plans to shift the
jobs.

The judge strongly criticized the subsidiary of United
Technologies Corp., saying it evaded the spirit of its union
contract requiring it to make every effort to keep the jobs in
the state.
snip

Unka George (George McDuffee)

Aha. I'll bet they're sorry they signed *that* contract. It's hard to
believe, though, that they'd have lower prices in Japan. Maybe Singapore --
much more business-friendly. And Georgia -- well, if they can make turbines
in the Third World, Ok. g

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:04:35 -0800, Bill Martin
wrote:
snip
We have already spent trillions on top of the trillions of
capital/asset losses with no effect. Still no
Glass-Steagall-Volker. Still no "small enough to fail" size
caps. Still no derivative regulation. Still no lynchings.


It's really hard to stop looters in police uniforms...

wwm
==========
Its even harder when they do not see themselves as looters, but
rather as "doing god's work" for which they make a little money.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6907681.ece
http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd...s-work-2009-11

This is not anything new. See the following quote from 1902.
"The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected
and cared for-not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian
men to who God in His infinite wisdom has given the control of
the property interests of this country. . ."
George F. Baker of Philadelphia and Reading Coal & Iron says July
17 as he continues to attempt to break the coal miners
union/strike.

Jeez. When I read that quickly, it came out "the Christian men who own
God..." d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



Our financial system is just like that right now Ed.
What I haven't had anyone explain in terms of the underlying
fundamentals is
why Citi, AIG, BofA and all of our other publicly traded banks and
financial
institutions aren't trading where they ought to be - at ZERO.

Because investors are confident they'll be bailed out.

That was true as recently as last August but not today.
Investors, and the public, can see that the programs in place are expiring
and the government supports withdrawn.

That's part of
what's keeping interest rates low for large-corporation bonds and
loans. Moral hazard at work, helping to stimulate investment.

What is keeping interest rater low is the tremendous pool of liquidity
pumped into the system that's otherwise idle.
IOW, supply and demand.



Even at the paltry sum of $3.50 per share, Citi is overvalued. They
aren't worth a thing.
AIG ought to be paying anyone stupid enough to want their common
equity and
the list just goes on and on.
Pretty funny. Go ahead, point and laugh.
That situation, not sovereign debt debacles, is about to end. It had
to be so and it will.
Gravity and Mother Earth are about to intrude and no amount of arm
flapping
will prevent it.
S.P.L.A.T.
The first gasp came in the form of a preemptively defensive $9
million dollar bonus payment.

I suspect that Treasury and the Fed are trying to accomplish a gradual
unwinding and liquidation, without killing the host. The trick is to
allow things to collapse in smaller steps. That's what the bailouts
are about.

Chinese water torture is the actual result, however.
What's happened is the creation of a conviction that there is no real
bottom.
The steps have been to small. Investors are becoming convinced that one step
forward, followed by two back, has become a permanent feature of economic
and financial life.

Whether it will work is an open question. If it doesn't,
we'll be right back where we were in late 2008, which would have
caused a complete collapse of the worldwide credit system if they
hadn't been bailed out.

We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've always
believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an orderly
manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a regrouping
or counter attack.

--
John R. Carroll

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:40:05 -0600, the infamous F. George McDuffee
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:00:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
all there is. The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
there's much more to account for.
snip
========
In this context you may find the following article of interest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/...dlcHJhdHRjYQ--
snip
HARTFORD, Conn. – A federal U.S. judge ordered jet engine maker
Pratt & Whitney to halt its plans to move 1,000 jobs out of
Connecticut and to Japan, Singapore and the state of Georgia.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a
permanent injunction, stopping the company's plans to shift the
jobs.

The judge strongly criticized the subsidiary of United
Technologies Corp., saying it evaded the spirit of its union
contract requiring it to make every effort to keep the jobs in
the state.
snip

I wonder how many more years P&W would have been problem-free if all
those workers weren't overpaid union guys.

nomex=ON

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



Our financial system is just like that right now Ed.
What I haven't had anyone explain in terms of the underlying
fundamentals is
why Citi, AIG, BofA and all of our other publicly traded banks and
financial
institutions aren't trading where they ought to be - at ZERO.

Because investors are confident they'll be bailed out.

That was true as recently as last August but not today.
Investors, and the public, can see that the programs in place are expiring
and the government supports withdrawn.

That's part of
what's keeping interest rates low for large-corporation bonds and
loans. Moral hazard at work, helping to stimulate investment.

What is keeping interest rater low is the tremendous pool of liquidity
pumped into the system that's otherwise idle.
IOW, supply and demand.



Even at the paltry sum of $3.50 per share, Citi is overvalued. They
aren't worth a thing.
AIG ought to be paying anyone stupid enough to want their common
equity and
the list just goes on and on.
Pretty funny. Go ahead, point and laugh.
That situation, not sovereign debt debacles, is about to end. It had
to be so and it will.
Gravity and Mother Earth are about to intrude and no amount of arm
flapping
will prevent it.
S.P.L.A.T.
The first gasp came in the form of a preemptively defensive $9
million dollar bonus payment.

I suspect that Treasury and the Fed are trying to accomplish a gradual
unwinding and liquidation, without killing the host. The trick is to
allow things to collapse in smaller steps. That's what the bailouts
are about.

Chinese water torture is the actual result, however.
What's happened is the creation of a conviction that there is no real
bottom.
The steps have been to small. Investors are becoming convinced that one
step
forward, followed by two back, has become a permanent feature of economic
and financial life.

Whether it will work is an open question. If it doesn't,
we'll be right back where we were in late 2008, which would have
caused a complete collapse of the worldwide credit system if they
hadn't been bailed out.

We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've always
believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd expected, was
a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an orderly
manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a regrouping
or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never. They
seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming and
going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
government involvement in business.

sigh....

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:57:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip a bunch of good stuff

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never. They
seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming and
going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
government involvement in business.

sigh....

--
Ed Huntress
====================

Some of the highest return on investment you can get is for
lobbying/bribery.

Now that the boogieman of a governmental single payer system has
been vanquished, its back to business as usual, and time to
recoup the lobbying and bribery costs.

As California goes, so goes the nation...

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2516013.html
snip
010 - 8:35 am

LOS ANGELES -- Anthem Blue Cross has told some customers it will
raise their health insurance premiums as much as 39 percent
beginning March 1.

The increases, reported Friday by the Los Angeles Times, involve
as many as 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage. People
with group coverage aren't affected.

In a statement, the Woodland Hills-based insurer declined to
specify the size of the rate changes or how many people will be
affected. The company - which is the largest for-profit health
insurer in California - blames the increases on rising health
care costs. It says its prices may be adjusted more frequently
than its typical annual increases.
snip

Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:57:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip a bunch of good stuff

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never. They
seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming
and
going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
government involvement in business.

sigh....

--
Ed Huntress
====================

Some of the highest return on investment you can get is for
lobbying/bribery.

Now that the boogieman of a governmental single payer system has
been vanquished, its back to business as usual, and time to
recoup the lobbying and bribery costs.

As California goes, so goes the nation...

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2516013.html
snip
010 - 8:35 am

LOS ANGELES -- Anthem Blue Cross has told some customers it will
raise their health insurance premiums as much as 39 percent
beginning March 1.

The increases, reported Friday by the Los Angeles Times, involve
as many as 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage. People
with group coverage aren't affected.

In a statement, the Woodland Hills-based insurer declined to
specify the size of the rate changes or how many people will be
affected. The company - which is the largest for-profit health
insurer in California - blames the increases on rising health
care costs. It says its prices may be adjusted more frequently
than its typical annual increases.
snip

Unka George (George McDuffee)

And awaaaay we go! Now we'll start to see the consequences of not putting
health insurance companies into a straightjacket. Let the free market
reign -- it's runaway insurance inflation for everyone!

The reason group coverage isn't affected yet is that group policies are the
one remaining competitive sector of the market, and it's done on longer-term
contracts. And as far as Fortune 500 companies go, most of them are
self-insured, anyway. The insurance company name on your card is just the
management and consulting firm. The big companies pay for their employees'
insurance claims, one by one. Blue Cross/Blue shield, etc., are just along
for the ride -- and a healthy fee.

The insurance companies now will bleed the individual policy holders as much
as they can, until there is some kind of rebellion.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've always
believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd
expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an
orderly manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a
regrouping or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never.
They seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've
worked the anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea
Party coming and going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but
not if it means more government involvement in business.

sigh....

A perfectly good crisis wasted but take heart Ed.
What's just around the corner is going to be a lulu and won't be.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I called this year's Super Bowl.
I watched it with my brother and a group of very smart and clever people.
They went to their stats and if you only look at the possible outcome
through that prism, the Colts were the hands down odds on favorite.

I told them that Indiana had recently won, the Saints never had and Drew
Brees would want to show up the Chargers, who basically fired him. You can't
really quantify those things but that was my reasoning.

It's the same reasoning I'm using to predict a real melt down.
We are just due.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've always
believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd
expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an
orderly manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a
regrouping or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never.
They seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've
worked the anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea
Party coming and going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but
not if it means more government involvement in business.

sigh....

A perfectly good crisis wasted but take heart Ed.
What's just around the corner is going to be a lulu and won't be.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I called this year's Super Bowl.
I watched it with my brother and a group of very smart and clever people.
They went to their stats and if you only look at the possible outcome
through that prism, the Colts were the hands down odds on favorite.

I told them that Indiana had recently won, the Saints never had and Drew
Brees would want to show up the Chargers, who basically fired him. You
can't
really quantify those things but that was my reasoning.

It's the same reasoning I'm using to predict a real melt down.
We are just due.

--
John R. Carroll

Ha. A sports picker who bets on players' emotions. I'll bet you were
sweating before the Saints pulled off that onside kick, however. That's
always a real crapshoot. g

Well, I hope your meltdown prediction goes the way of Gunner's Great Cull.
The good thing about your wager, though, is that you stand no chance of
winding up on death row. Gunner may not be so lucky. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've
always believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd
expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an
orderly manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a
regrouping or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never.
They seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've
worked the anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the
Tea Party coming and going: they want to put a lid on bank
bailouts, but not if it means more government involvement in
business.

sigh....

A perfectly good crisis wasted but take heart Ed.
What's just around the corner is going to be a lulu and won't be.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I called this year's Super Bowl.
I watched it with my brother and a group of very smart and clever
people. They went to their stats and if you only look at the
possible outcome through that prism, the Colts were the hands down
odds on favorite.

I told them that Indiana had recently won, the Saints never had and
Drew Brees would want to show up the Chargers, who basically fired
him. You can't
really quantify those things but that was my reasoning.

It's the same reasoning I'm using to predict a real melt down.
We are just due.

--
John R. Carroll

Ha. A sports picker who bets on players' emotions. I'll bet you were
sweating before the Saints pulled off that onside kick, however.

Well, I couldn't believe the dumb ****s took Bush out of the game every time
they got to the red zone.
The fourth down shtick was also pretty stupid but when the third quarter
began with an onside that was recovered, I was pretty sure N.O. had regained
the momentum necessary.


That's always a real crapshoot. g

Well, I hope your meltdown prediction goes the way of Gunner's Great
Cull. The good thing about your wager, though, is that you stand no
chance of winding up on death row. Gunner may not be so lucky. d8-)


There is little downside to pessimism Ed.
I have the satisfaction of being correct 80 percent of the time and
pleasantly surprised the other twenty.
LOL

Keep in mind that I called Obama months before he entered the race.
Actually, what I said was that if he ran he'd beat Hillary and go on to be
our next President regardless his opponent.
I've also pretty consitently gotten the last couple of years doings in the
financial services and banking sector right, even down to the timing. At
least roughly. There wasn't, however, any real genius in that. All you had
to do was accept that greed and avarice, freed from regulation, would
produce the result it always has. That's just common sense.

I did misfire on the NJ Governors contest, however.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've
always believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd
expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an
orderly manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a
regrouping or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never.
They seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've
worked the anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the
Tea Party coming and going: they want to put a lid on bank
bailouts, but not if it means more government involvement in
business.

sigh....

A perfectly good crisis wasted but take heart Ed.
What's just around the corner is going to be a lulu and won't be.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I called this year's Super Bowl.
I watched it with my brother and a group of very smart and clever
people. They went to their stats and if you only look at the
possible outcome through that prism, the Colts were the hands down
odds on favorite.

I told them that Indiana had recently won, the Saints never had and
Drew Brees would want to show up the Chargers, who basically fired
him. You can't
really quantify those things but that was my reasoning.

It's the same reasoning I'm using to predict a real melt down.
We are just due.

--
John R. Carroll

Ha. A sports picker who bets on players' emotions. I'll bet you were
sweating before the Saints pulled off that onside kick, however.

Well, I couldn't believe the dumb ****s took Bush out of the game every
time
they got to the red zone.
The fourth down shtick was also pretty stupid but when the third quarter
began with an onside that was recovered, I was pretty sure N.O. had
regained
the momentum necessary.


That's always a real crapshoot. g

Well, I hope your meltdown prediction goes the way of Gunner's Great
Cull. The good thing about your wager, though, is that you stand no
chance of winding up on death row. Gunner may not be so lucky. d8-)


There is little downside to pessimism Ed.
I have the satisfaction of being correct 80 percent of the time and
pleasantly surprised the other twenty.
LOL

Keep in mind that I called Obama months before he entered the race.
Actually, what I said was that if he ran he'd beat Hillary and go on to be
our next President regardless his opponent.
I've also pretty consitently gotten the last couple of years doings in the
financial services and banking sector right, even down to the timing. At
least roughly. There wasn't, however, any real genius in that. All you had
to do was accept that greed and avarice, freed from regulation, would
produce the result it always has. That's just common sense.

I did misfire on the NJ Governors contest, however.

You would have had to be here to feel the momentum. It's probably a lot like
the feeling in California, though. There's a real sense of desperation here
about taxes, and our new clod...er, governor got away with promising to fix
it without saying how. There is no "how." We're just going to have to ride
it out. The thing is, it feels to me like we'll be riding it out on the back
of a jackass.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:57:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip a bunch of good stuff
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've always
believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd expected, was
a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an orderly
manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a regrouping
or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never.
While lobbies/political influence are indeed powerful, they can
only function when the congress/legislature, administration or
regulators can effect the outcome. For example once Hurricane
Katrina hit, not matter how much political influence or suction
the people or corporations in New Orleans had, it made no
difference. We appear to be rapidly approaching this point.

They
seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming and
going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
government involvement in business.
============
The only thing that the astronomical global governmental deficits
over the last few years appears to have accomplished is to buy
some very expensive time by postponing the crash.

It is well to remember that the individual tax payers in the
European countries and Japan are just as much "on the hook"
[possibly more] as the individual American taxpayers.

The available data clearly shows that the current explosion in
public debt did *NOT* start with the collapse of Lehman Brothers
on 15 September 2008, albeit it considerably accelerated from
that point [or was at least forced to the surface and onto the
books].

Clearly the current financial/fiscal/monotary [regulatory]
environment is not sustainable and is rapidly becoming
disfunctional/unstable.

It has been about 18 months since Lehman Brothers ate the bullet.

We still have not:
(1) Enacted a new Glass-Steagall-Volker act to prevent federally
insured banks from speculating with the deopsitors/taxpayers
money.
(2) Repealed the CFTC Modernization Act of 2000 to again allow
[require] regulation of derivatives and the regulation of
commodity trading, including energy. [Think Enron, Gray Davis and
the California electricity screw job.]
(3) Enacted "small enough to fail" capital and market share caps
for financial institutions including banks/quasi-banks and
insurance companies.

The only question is not *IF*, but rather the exact sequence and
timing of the defaults that will result in a global credit
collapse, as nothing has been done to prevent it and the
conditions remain exactly the same as when the last one occurred.

While the direct liability of the Euro zone PIIGS [Portugal,
Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Spain] sovereign debt is enormous,
unfortunately this liability has been significantly amplified
through investor/speculator "leverage" and most critically
through the creation and wide sale of unregulated, and indeed
uncontrolled/unregistered, derivatives such as credit default
swaps [CDS].

It now appears that a significant portion of the capital
[taxpayer liabilities] made available by the US Federal Reserve
and Treasury has been used to inflate the sovereign debt bubble
rather than investing in domestic [US] high value added
operations, as the paper rates of return were much
quicker/higher.

It should be noted that much of the exposure/liability of the
major US and other financial institutions to the sovereign debt
bubble has been masked, in that they did not directly
invest/speculate but instead loaned the funds at high interest to
the he/bond funds and other institutions that did. Another
source of liability is counterparty risk from the CDSs, ala AIG,
or the loss of the "insurance" when the counterparty cannot or
will not make good on the credit guarantee, driving the asset
value of the bonds/CDSs held or acquired to zero.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:57:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip a bunch of good stuff
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've always
believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd expected,
was
a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an orderly
manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a
regrouping
or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never.
While lobbies/political influence are indeed powerful, they can
only function when the congress/legislature, administration or
regulators can effect the outcome. For example once Hurricane
Katrina hit, not matter how much political influence or suction
the people or corporations in New Orleans had, it made no
difference. We appear to be rapidly approaching this point.

They
seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming
and
going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
government involvement in business.
============
The only thing that the astronomical global governmental deficits
over the last few years appears to have accomplished is to buy
some very expensive time by postponing the crash.

It is well to remember that the individual tax payers in the
European countries and Japan are just as much "on the hook"
[possibly more] as the individual American taxpayers.

The available data clearly shows that the current explosion in
public debt did *NOT* start with the collapse of Lehman Brothers
on 15 September 2008, albeit it considerably accelerated from
that point [or was at least forced to the surface and onto the
books].

Clearly the current financial/fiscal/monotary [regulatory]
environment is not sustainable and is rapidly becoming
disfunctional/unstable.

It has been about 18 months since Lehman Brothers ate the bullet.

We still have not:
(1) Enacted a new Glass-Steagall-Volker act to prevent federally
insured banks from speculating with the deopsitors/taxpayers
money.
(2) Repealed the CFTC Modernization Act of 2000 to again allow
[require] regulation of derivatives and the regulation of
commodity trading, including energy. [Think Enron, Gray Davis and
the California electricity screw job.]
(3) Enacted "small enough to fail" capital and market share caps
for financial institutions including banks/quasi-banks and
insurance companies.

The only question is not *IF*, but rather the exact sequence and
timing of the defaults that will result in a global credit
collapse, as nothing has been done to prevent it and the
conditions remain exactly the same as when the last one occurred.

While the direct liability of the Euro zone PIIGS [Portugal,
Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Spain] sovereign debt is enormous,
unfortunately this liability has been significantly amplified
through investor/speculator "leverage" and most critically
through the creation and wide sale of unregulated, and indeed
uncontrolled/unregistered, derivatives such as credit default
swaps [CDS].

It now appears that a significant portion of the capital
[taxpayer liabilities] made available by the US Federal Reserve
and Treasury has been used to inflate the sovereign debt bubble
rather than investing in domestic [US] high value added
operations, as the paper rates of return were much
quicker/higher.

It should be noted that much of the exposure/liability of the
major US and other financial institutions to the sovereign debt
bubble has been masked, in that they did not directly
invest/speculate but instead loaned the funds at high interest to
the he/bond funds and other institutions that did. Another
source of liability is counterparty risk from the CDSs, ala AIG,
or the loss of the "insurance" when the counterparty cannot or
will not make good on the credit guarantee, driving the asset
value of the bonds/CDSs held or acquired to zero.


Unka George (George McDuffee)

Indeed the euro is in deep doodo this morning.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE61704V20100208

The vortex is sucking in Japanese stocks.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...talks-end.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKW00680220100208

Looks like we are stuck in a endless loop until congress steps in and hits
the reset button with some legistation. It will be to little to late as
usual.
Apparentley we have reached critical mass and are only waiting for the
trigger to start the chain reaction.

Best Regards
Tom.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've
always believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd
expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to
allow a restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that
collapse in an orderly manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was
mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a
regrouping or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe
never. They seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And
they've worked the anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've
got the Tea Party coming and going: they want to put a lid on bank
bailouts, but not if it means more government involvement in
business.

sigh....

A perfectly good crisis wasted but take heart Ed.
What's just around the corner is going to be a lulu and won't be.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I called this year's Super
Bowl. I watched it with my brother and a group of very smart and
clever people. They went to their stats and if you only look at the
possible outcome through that prism, the Colts were the hands down
odds on favorite.

I told them that Indiana had recently won, the Saints never had and
Drew Brees would want to show up the Chargers, who basically fired
him. You can't
really quantify those things but that was my reasoning.

It's the same reasoning I'm using to predict a real melt down.
We are just due.

--
John R. Carroll

Ha. A sports picker who bets on players' emotions. I'll bet you were
sweating before the Saints pulled off that onside kick, however.

Well, I couldn't believe the dumb ****s took Bush out of the game
every time
they got to the red zone.
The fourth down shtick was also pretty stupid but when the third
quarter began with an onside that was recovered, I was pretty sure
N.O. had regained
the momentum necessary.


That's always a real crapshoot. g

Well, I hope your meltdown prediction goes the way of Gunner's Great
Cull. The good thing about your wager, though, is that you stand no
chance of winding up on death row. Gunner may not be so lucky. d8-)


There is little downside to pessimism Ed.
I have the satisfaction of being correct 80 percent of the time and
pleasantly surprised the other twenty.
LOL

Keep in mind that I called Obama months before he entered the race.
Actually, what I said was that if he ran he'd beat Hillary and go on
to be our next President regardless his opponent.
I've also pretty consitently gotten the last couple of years doings
in the financial services and banking sector right, even down to the
timing. At least roughly. There wasn't, however, any real genius in
that. All you had to do was accept that greed and avarice, freed
from regulation, would produce the result it always has. That's just
common sense.

I did misfire on the NJ Governors contest, however.

You would have had to be here to feel the momentum. It's probably a
lot like the feeling in California, though. There's a real sense of
desperation here about taxes, and our new clod...er, governor got
away with promising to fix it without saying how. There is no "how."
We're just going to have to ride it out. The thing is, it feels to me
like we'll be riding it out on the back of a jackass.

Speaking of Jackassery.
LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html


--
John R. Carroll

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 23:55:07 -0800, "azotic"
wrote:

Indeed the euro is in deep doodo this morning.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE61704V20100208

The vortex is sucking in Japanese stocks.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...talks-end.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKW00680220100208

Looks like we are stuck in a endless loop until congress steps in and hits
the reset button with some legistation. It will be to little to late as
usual.
Don't confuse an endless loop with a "death spiral."
Apparentley we have reached critical mass and are only waiting for the
trigger to start the chain reaction.
====================

When you play with fire, sooner or later you will get burned.
{Where are the responsible adults???}

This just in from the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...ence-ebbs.html
For the third time in 18 months the global financial system risks
spinning out of control unless political leaders take immediate
and radical action.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 5:46PM GMT 07 Feb 2010
snip
Flow data shows an abrupt withdrawal of German and Asian capital
from Club Med debt markets. The EU's refusal to offer Greece
anything beyond stern words and a one-month deadline for harsher
austerity – while admirable in one sense – is to misjudge how
fast confidence is ebbing. Greece's drama has already
metastasised into a wider systemic crisis. The world risks a
replay of the Lehman collapse if this runs unchecked, this time
involving sovereign dominoes.

Barclays Capital says the net external liabilities of Greece are
87pc of GDP, or €208bn (£182bn). Spain is worse at 91pc (€950bn),
and Portugal worse yet at 108pc (€177bn); Ireland is 68pc
(€123bn), Italy is 23pc, (€347bn). Add East Europe's bubble and
foreign debts top €2 trillion.

The scale matches America's sub-prime/Alt-A adventure and
assorted CDOs and SIVS of the Greenspan fling. The parallels are
closer than Europe cares to admit. Just as Benelux funds and
German Landesbanken bought subprime debt for high yield with AAA
gloss, they bought Spanish Cedulas because these too had a safe
gloss – even though Spain's property boom broke world records.
==They thought EMU had eliminated risk: it merely switched
exchange risk into credit risk. ==

A fat chunk of Club Med debt has to be rolled over soon. Capital
Economics said the share of state debt maturing this year is even
higher in Spain (17pc) than in Greece (12pc), though Spain's
Achilles' Heel is mortgage debt.
snip
---------
Be sure to at least scan the comments. I find it noteworthy that
California's budget problems seem to be as well known
internationally as Greece's.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 23:55:07 -0800, "azotic"
wrote:
snip
Indeed the euro is in deep doodo this morning.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE61704V20100208

The vortex is sucking in Japanese stocks.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...talks-end.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKW00680220100208
==========
This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Information continues to bubble to the surface as to just how
badly the books have been cooked. In this particular case with
the help of Goldman-Sachs. [Apparently there are many other banks
playing the same games, most using the taxpayers' bailout money]

From Germany
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...676634,00.html

02/08/2010
Greek Debt Crisis
How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt
By Beat Balzli

snip
Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government to mask the true extent
of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally
circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. At some point the
so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and swell the
country's already bloated deficit.
snip
Creative accounting took priority when it came to totting up
government debt.Since 1999, the Maastricht rules threaten to slap
hefty fines on euro member countries that exceed the budget
deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic product. Total
government debt mustn't exceed 60 percent.

The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt
limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling
with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics. One time,
gigantic military expenditures were left out, and another time
billions in hospital debt. After recalculating the figures, the
experts at Eurostat consistently came up with the same results:
In truth, the deficit each year has been far greater than the
three percent limit. In 2009, it exploded to over 12 percent.

Now, though, it looks like the Greek figure jugglers have been
even more brazen than was previously thought. "Around 2002 in
particular, various investment banks offered complex financial
products with which governments could push part of their
liabilities into the future," one insider recalled, adding that
Mediterranean countries had snapped up such products.

Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers
of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The
deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government
debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a
certain period -- to be exchanged back into the original
currencies at a later date.

snip
But in the Greek case the US bankers devised a special kind of
swap with fictional exchange rates. That enabled Greece to
receive a far higher sum than the actual euro market value of 10
billion dollars or yen. In that way Goldman Sachs secretly
arranged additional credit of up to $1 billion for the Greeks.

This credit disguised as a swap didn't show up in the Greek debt
statistics. Eurostat's reporting rules don't comprehensively
record transactions involving financial derivatives. "The
Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through
swaps," says a German derivatives dealer.

In previous years, Italy used a similar trick to mask its true
debt with the help of a different US bank. In 2002 the Greek
deficit amounted to 1.2 percent of GDP. After Eurostat reviewed
the data in September 2004, the ratio had to be revised up to 3.7
percent. According to today's records, it stands at 5.2 percent.

snip


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've
always believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd
expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to
allow a restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that
collapse in an orderly manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was
mistaken.

The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a
regrouping or counter attack.

Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe
never. They seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And
they've worked the anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've
got the Tea Party coming and going: they want to put a lid on bank
bailouts, but not if it means more government involvement in
business.

sigh....

A perfectly good crisis wasted but take heart Ed.
What's just around the corner is going to be a lulu and won't be.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I called this year's Super
Bowl. I watched it with my brother and a group of very smart and
clever people. They went to their stats and if you only look at the
possible outcome through that prism, the Colts were the hands down
odds on favorite.

I told them that Indiana had recently won, the Saints never had and
Drew Brees would want to show up the Chargers, who basically fired
him. You can't
really quantify those things but that was my reasoning.

It's the same reasoning I'm using to predict a real melt down.
We are just due.

--
John R. Carroll

Ha. A sports picker who bets on players' emotions. I'll bet you were
sweating before the Saints pulled off that onside kick, however.

Well, I couldn't believe the dumb ****s took Bush out of the game
every time
they got to the red zone.
The fourth down shtick was also pretty stupid but when the third
quarter began with an onside that was recovered, I was pretty sure
N.O. had regained
the momentum necessary.


That's always a real crapshoot. g

Well, I hope your meltdown prediction goes the way of Gunner's Great
Cull. The good thing about your wager, though, is that you stand no
chance of winding up on death row. Gunner may not be so lucky. d8-)


There is little downside to pessimism Ed.
I have the satisfaction of being correct 80 percent of the time and
pleasantly surprised the other twenty.
LOL

Keep in mind that I called Obama months before he entered the race.
Actually, what I said was that if he ran he'd beat Hillary and go on
to be our next President regardless his opponent.
I've also pretty consitently gotten the last couple of years doings
in the financial services and banking sector right, even down to the
timing. At least roughly. There wasn't, however, any real genius in
that. All you had to do was accept that greed and avarice, freed
from regulation, would produce the result it always has. That's just
common sense.

I did misfire on the NJ Governors contest, however.

You would have had to be here to feel the momentum. It's probably a
lot like the feeling in California, though. There's a real sense of
desperation here about taxes, and our new clod...er, governor got
away with promising to fix it without saying how. There is no "how."
We're just going to have to ride it out. The thing is, it feels to me
like we'll be riding it out on the back of a jackass.

Speaking of Jackassery.
LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html

It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her hand was
a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for the Q&A period;
she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a prompt to remember them, then
wha??

Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.
I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just look at the phenomenon
itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was right about that. One hopes
that the phenomenon follows the rest of his prescription: that they figure
out what it is they want, and how to accomplish it. That's where the Tea
Party is going to run into trouble. They're going to find out about the law
of unintended consequences.

--
Ed Huntress

LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html

It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her hand was
a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for the Q&A period;
she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a prompt to remember them, then
wha??

Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.
I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just look at the phenomenon
itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was right about that. One hopes
that the phenomenon follows the rest of his prescription: that they figure
out what it is they want, and how to accomplish it. That's where the Tea
Party is going to run into trouble. They're going to find out about the law
of unintended consequences.


I doubt it, Ed.
the playing field has become entirely too complex.

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

cavelamb wrote:
LMFAO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html

It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her
hand was a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for
the Q&A period; she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a
prompt to remember them, then wha??

Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and
Sarah Palin. I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just
look at the phenomenon itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was
right about that. One hopes that the phenomenon follows the rest of
his prescription: that they figure out what it is they want, and how
to accomplish it. That's where the Tea Party is going to run into
trouble. They're going to find out about the law of unintended
consequences.


I doubt it, Ed.
the playing field has become entirely too complex.

There isn't anything either complex or subtle about it Richard.
Tancredo's acclaimed statement during his address that we ought to again
have a civics literacy test before you can vote revealed the true character
of the Tea Party, Tom Tancredo, Sarah Palin and the lot of them.

Here is the exact quote:

"And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do
not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country."

We had these sorts of tests in America until 1965. Everyone, including Tom
Tancredo, understood then, and understands now, the purpose of those tests.

These are the same ignorant, white trash, red neck hillbilly's that were
stringing people up not long ago and harkening back to those days is a sure
prescription for a bad end. They will be absorbed back into the Republican
mainstream after extracting their pound of flesh.
It's likely their political activism will lead to the loss of the middle of
the road independent voters completely so what they will end up doing is
costing the "conservative" candidates they espouse support for and real
chance. IOW, they will be radioactive, politically speaking.


--
John R. Carroll

"cavelamb" wrote in message
news

LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html

It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her hand
was a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for the Q&A
period; she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a prompt to remember
them, then wha??

Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and Sarah
Palin. I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just look at the
phenomenon itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was right about
that. One hopes that the phenomenon follows the rest of his prescription:
that they figure out what it is they want, and how to accomplish it.
That's where the Tea Party is going to run into trouble. They're going to
find out about the law of unintended consequences.


I doubt it, Ed.
the playing field has become entirely too complex.

What do you think will happen?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html
It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her hand
was a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for the Q&A
period; she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a prompt to remember
them, then wha??

Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and Sarah
Palin. I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just look at the
phenomenon itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was right about
that. One hopes that the phenomenon follows the rest of his prescription:
that they figure out what it is they want, and how to accomplish it.
That's where the Tea Party is going to run into trouble. They're going to
find out about the law of unintended consequences.

I doubt it, Ed.
the playing field has become entirely too complex.

What do you think will happen?



I have no idea, Ed.
But I'd suspect more smoke and mirrors.



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/


"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."

cavelamb wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html

It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her
hand was a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for
the Q&A period; she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a
prompt to remember them, then wha??

Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and
Sarah Palin. I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just
look at the phenomenon itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was
right about that. One hopes that the phenomenon follows the rest of
his prescription: that they figure out what it is they want, and how
to accomplish it. That's where the Tea Party is going to run into
trouble. They're going to find out about the law of unintended
consequences.

I doubt it, Ed.
the playing field has become entirely too complex.

What do you think will happen?



I have no idea, Ed.
But I'd suspect more smoke and mirrors.





And CITI bank will lead us out of this darkness!

(yee haw!)

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
cavelamb wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan..._b_452458.html
It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her
hand was a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for
the Q&A period; she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a prompt
to remember them, then wha??

Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and Sarah
Palin. I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just look at
the phenomenon itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was right
about that. One hopes that the phenomenon follows the rest of his
prescription: that they figure out what it is they want, and how to
accomplish it. That's where the Tea Party is going to run into
trouble. They're going to find out about the law of unintended
consequences.

I doubt it, Ed.
the playing field has become entirely too complex.

What do you think will happen?



I have no idea, Ed.
But I'd suspect more smoke and mirrors.





And CITI bank will lead us out of this darkness!

(yee haw!)

Hey, they're wising up. They've just remembered which side their bread is
buttered on. They've switched their political contributions to the
Republicans!

They're working hard for eight more years of Bushonomics, Making Our Streets
Safe for Wall Street Billionaires. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:53:27 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
It appears that the extent of major U.S. [and other] financial
institutional exposure [and thus taxpayer liability] to the Euro
zone sovereign debt problems and/or new bubble collapse through
direct investment, loans to speculators, and CDS/derivative
counter parties is totally unknown, but after a big loss most
gamblers "double down" or even go "all in" in an attempt to
recoup their losses.
snip

More s**t floats to the top of the financial septic tank...

Reuters article indicates that *DIRECT* US bank [US taxpayer]
exposure to the Euro zone sovereign debt bubble totals 176
Billion $US.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0911899120100209
snip
The FFIEC data shows that 10 U.S. banks -- Bank of America
(BAC.N), Citigroup (C.N), JPMorgan, Wells Fargo (WFC.N), Bank of
New York (BK.N), State Street (STT.N), Goldman Sachs (GS.N),
Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and the U.S. branches of Deutsche Bank
(DBKGn.DE) and HSBC (HSBA.L) -- hold 96 percent of the risk,
Barclays said.

The banks have $86 billion in exposure to Ireland, $68 billion to
Spain, $18 billion to Greece and $9 billion to Portugal, Barclays
said.
snip
==========
A major problem is that the amount of CDS counterparty liability
is unknown [think AIG], as is the amount loaned to bond/hedge and
other funds/speculators, where the main or only collateral is
Euro zone sovereign debt bonds. The amount of US Pension funds
invested in these bonds is also unknown but the higher returns
and high ratings [when sold] would have caused many pension fund
managers to load up.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe
almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie
because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it
might be true.

People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it
is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only
rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth.

— The Wizard's First Rule

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:38:43 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:53:27 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
It appears that the extent of major U.S. [and other] financial
institutional exposure [and thus taxpayer liability] to the Euro
zone sovereign debt problems and/or new bubble collapse through
direct investment, loans to speculators, and CDS/derivative
counter parties is totally unknown, but after a big loss most
gamblers "double down" or even go "all in" in an attempt to
recoup their losses.
snip
========
If anyone is interested, here is yet more information on this
latest financial debacle.

It is worthwhile to remember that while the 1929 stock market
crash in the U.S. was the result of a domestic bubble, the "Great
Depression" occurred roughly 1 year later when the European
economic system imploded, resulting in numerous U.S. bank
failures and a catastrophic contraction in the national/global
money supply leading to global hyper-deflation.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1...nclick_check=1


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:03:56 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 20:17:40 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt
is insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was
120% of GDP after WWII and was followed by two decades of high
average growth, they look immediately for a reason this couldn't be
true, rather than trying to figure out why it IS true.
snip
=======

It is indeed likely that if we could return to the culture and
economy existing in the U.S. after WWII we could indeed "grow"
our way out of debt, however that was then and this is now.

Operationally that country no longer exists, and for sure the
circumstances/conditions/environment/society/culture/policies are
now completely different.
=======
I got several emails on this asking for some examples.

One example is the ratio between CEO compensation and the
compensation for the median or average worker. In the 1950s the
CEO got about 20 times the median or average worker's annual
compensation. Currently the typical CEO gets about 200 times
[and frequently more] their corporation's median or average
employees annual compensation.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...hots_20060621/
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/

Another example is the source of corporate profits. In the last
several years, 40% or more of all corporate profits have been
generated by the financial services sector. Because of the
proliferation of non-bank bank operations within other sectors,
this figure could be and most likely is even higher. Thus the
U.S. economy appears to have shifted from operations creating
wealth from "high value added" operations in the 1950s and 1960s
to wealth transfer and extraction, i.e. zero-sum activities in
that what one person gains, another person loses.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:03:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"azotic" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.
==========
The following WSJ article should be of interest.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._LEFTWhatsNews

Many Jobs Gone Forever, Economists Say
Increased Automation, Relocations Overseas Mean Workers Will Find
Different Employment Mix When Recession Ends
By PHIL IZZO

About a quarter of the 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the
recession began won't be coming back and will ultimately need to
be replaced by other types of work in growing industries,
according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal
forecasting survey.
snip
It isn't just weak growth that's damping job growth. "Companies,
in the name of making money, substitute against labor through
outsourcing or technology," said Allen Sinai of Decision
Economics. Wages and benefits make workers "so expensive that who
wants to hire them? As a result, the displaced workers won't be
rehired unless we have double the growth rate we're expecting."
snip
===========


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:03:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"azotic" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs,
i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.
==========
The following WSJ article should be of interest.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._LEFTWhatsNews

Many Jobs Gone Forever, Economists Say
Increased Automation, Relocations Overseas Mean Workers Will Find
Different Employment Mix When Recession Ends
By PHIL IZZO

About a quarter of the 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the
recession began won't be coming back and will ultimately need to
be replaced by other types of work in growing industries,
according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal
forecasting survey.
snip
It isn't just weak growth that's damping job growth. "Companies,
in the name of making money, substitute against labor through
outsourcing or technology," said Allen Sinai of Decision
Economics. Wages and benefits make workers "so expensive that who
wants to hire them? As a result, the displaced workers won't be
rehired unless we have double the growth rate we're expecting."
snip
===========

That is interesting, George. There's a similar article in, I think, this
month's _Atlantic Monthly_.

I've mentioned before that I've always been a pessimist about jobs as we
come out of recessions, but my pessimism may finally be coming to pass. I
really don't see where the jobs will be coming from.

There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and computers
were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we wouldn't need a
lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that we would simply
shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time. But capital
doesn't like to be spread around. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and computers
were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we wouldn't need a
lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that we would simply
shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time. But capital
doesn't like to be spread around. g


Welcome to the 21st Century

"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:

There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and
computers were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we
wouldn't need a lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that
we would simply shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time.
But capital doesn't like to be spread around. g


Welcome to the 21st Century

Well, yeah, I have a calendar, but it doesn't tell me what's going to happen
to our economy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and
computers were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we
wouldn't need a lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that
we would simply shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time.
But capital doesn't like to be spread around. g

Welcome to the 21st Century

Well, yeah, I have a calendar, but it doesn't tell me what's going to happen
to our economy. d8-)



Ed, I can appreciate that.

But can you appreciate how much you position had changed in the last year?

You were a true believer.
A true optimist.
You had faith in "the system".
It was all going to be - okay.

I loved you for that.
It gave me hope.

But now here we are...

The inmates have taken over the asylum,
and here we are...

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I
don't make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this
moment in history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering
automation and computers were just starting to get involved. It looked
then like we wouldn't need a lot of people in the future. My thoughts
then were that we would simply shorten the work week, like France was
doing at the time. But capital doesn't like to be spread around. g

Welcome to the 21st Century

Well, yeah, I have a calendar, but it doesn't tell me what's going to
happen to our economy. d8-)



Ed, I can appreciate that.

But can you appreciate how much you position had changed in the last year?

You were a true believer.
A true optimist.
You had faith in "the system".
It was all going to be - okay.

I loved you for that.
It gave me hope.

But now here we are...

The inmates have taken over the asylum,
and here we are...

Richard, I couldn't begin to explain my thoughts on economics, work, and
policy in 1,000 messages here. I do indeed believe that everything is going
to be Ok. My concern about jobs goes back 35 years -- it's a concern with
the economic system, not with the long-term well-being of the country. I saw
a train wreck ahead with saturating markets, low-cost Asian manufacturing,
large gains in productivity, and our growing dependency on big, historic
technological breakthroughs to give employment and the economy as a whole a
periodic boost.

It's just never looked sustainable to me. But those breakthroughs kept
coming, and they've dominated economic growth during our adult lifetimes.
Now the breakthroughs have slowed down and we've become dependent on
bubbles.

What's next? A denouement of sorts: a recognition that the chain of
breakthrough technologies isn't enough to sustain adequate growth under our
present model, and a further recognition that bubbles are chimeras that do
more harm than good.

Our economy is based on private consumption, and it is far and away the most
mature, and saturated, such economy in history. I don't think the
traditional growth models apply to it very well. Between replacement (think
agriculture and underwear g), and the growth that comes from continuous
improvement (cars, PCs, cameras), my gut feeling is that we can produce no
more than 3% growth per year. Possibly even less. Anything over that is
direct and indirect effects of big technological developments (mass
production of steel; the railroad; the automobile; civilian air transport;
microelectronics; personal computers -- all in the past tense -- and
possibly energy breakthroughs in the future tense) or bubbles. Again, the
former cannot be counted on, even if they occasionally apply a positive
punctuation to the basic economic model.

Without a shot at sustainable 4+% growth, we'll have a hell of a time
digging out of future recessions. So I see some changes coming in the
operating model. Don't ask me what they are; I don't have a clue. I can
hypothesize some things but they're just guesses.

As for why I think things will be Ok -- eventually -- we have the means to
produce a very nice standard of living. Recessions don't change that. Other
highly developed countries are headed for a worse funk than we are. At some
point we'll do a new Bretton Woods and come up with a sustainable model. We
all have the means.

We aren't going to commit suicide, and our productive capacity, housing
stock, transportation and communication are not going to disappear. So
there's good reason to be optimistic. We do need to adjust to slower growth,
and we need to make sure that all growth accrues to the well being of the
large majority of citizens.

--
Ed Huntress

Well dam, ed.

You had me worried there for a moment...

(VBG)

I guess the problem that I have is that you are a rational man.
I just don't see that in the political mess.

On Feb 12, 6:05*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:




It's just never looked sustainable to me. But those breakthroughs kept
coming, and they've dominated economic growth during our adult lifetimes.
Now the breakthroughs have slowed down and we've become dependent on
bubbles.


Without a shot at sustainable 4+% growth, we'll have a hell of a time
digging out of future recessions. So I see some changes coming in the
operating model. Don't ask me what they are; I don't have a clue. I can
hypothesize some things but they're just guesses.


We do need to adjust to slower growth,
and we need to make sure that all growth accrues to the well being of the
large majority of citizens.

--
Ed Huntress

The brightest spot that I can see is biotech. Still lots going on
there. Look at companies as Monsanto, Illuminati. But I do not see
much for the high school graduate. There is going to be much less
demand for low skilled labor.

Dan

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:56:51 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
snip
and we need to make sure that all growth accrues to the well being of the
large majority of citizens.

--
Ed Huntress

The brightest spot that I can see is biotech. Still lots going on
there. Look at companies as Monsanto, Illuminati. But I do not see
much for the high school graduate. There is going to be much less
demand for low skilled labor.
snip
==========
One of the major problems appears to be continuing to apply
assumptions, theories, metrics and logic to situations/conditions
where these are no longer operational, particularly when these
are tacit and/or subliminal.

One example, how is U.S. economic well-being measured by a metric
such as the Dow that is grossly affected by internal/domestic PRC
fiscal/financial policy changes?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/...us_wall_street
Stocks swoon after China brakes lending again
By STEPHEN BERNARD and TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writers Stephen
Bernard And Tim Paradis, Ap Business Writers – 26 mins ago

NEW YORK – Stocks skidded Friday after China said for the second
time in a month it would force its banks to reduce their lending.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell 105 points in midday
trading after China said it would require banks to increase
reserve levels. The surprising move comes a day after a tame
inflation report raised hopes that China wouldn't have to further
tighten its monetary policy or take other steps to put the brakes
on its supercharged economy.

Chinese regulators are trying to contain rapid economic growth
there to prevent speculative investment bubbles. Investors worry
that a slowdown in China could disrupt a U.S. recovery by hurting
exports and profits of companies that do business there.

A similar action to curb bank lending nearly a month ago in China
spooked the market and helped start a slide that has brought
major indexes down for four straight weeks. As of late morning
the Dow was trading just above 10,000 and barely in the black for
the week.
snip
===========

Other areas of concern include the fact that there are no longer
any American companies, only transnational corporations that are
domiciled in the U.S., including biotech.

Any advances/developments that in the past would have generated
domestic [U.S.] investment and jobs with high value-added
operations and high economic multipliers are now immediately
exported to countries with low wages/taxes and lax environmental
and other standards, including worker safety, in spite of the
fact that the products and methodology may have been developed
with governmental [tax payer] funds.

It should also be noted that "only" a high school education does
not automatically equate to low skills/knowledge nor does a
college degree necessarily equate to any useful skill or
knowledge for gainful employment.

The fact that it is now generally considered necessary for an
individual to invest 4 or more years of their lives and
100,000$U.S. to prove they are "worthy" [of employment and full
participation in society] says more about the problems of the
current U.S. socio-economic/political milieu than it does about
the individual. Increasingly, even after the "investment" of
large amounts of time and money, the individual is still unable
to find reasonable/suitable employment, and is burdened with
crippling student loan repayment.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...e+education%22
snip
One problem he sees with the estimates: They don't take into
account deductions from income taxes or breaks in employment. Nor
do they factor in debt, particularly student debt loads, which
have ballooned for both public and private colleges in recent
years. In addition, the income data used for the Census estimates
is from 1999, when total expenses for tuition and fees at the
average four-year private college were $15,518 per year. For the
2009-10 school year, that number has risen to $26,273, and it
continues to increase at a rate higher than inflation.
snip
------------

It should be crystal clear that the only alternative to the
current corporate kamikaze pilot dive to the economic bottom is
the forcing of the corporations to more equitably share their
advances in productivity with their employees by reducing the
standard work week, possibly to 30 hours with current pay and
benefits, with draconian penalties for evasion.

Additionally the very high earners, for example those earning
more than 10 times the median US income, [currently
704k$US/family] *SHOULD* pay much higher taxes, including social
security, as much of this income was the result of their
decisions to, or at least the aiding and abetting in, export U.S.
jobs, which would have paid taxes in the past.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/.../SMI75FY09.pdf

One useful place to start is the removal of the current social
security earnings tax cap, currently 106,800$. In and of itself,
this would resolve the projected SS "shortfall" for several
years.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...cial_security/

When we don't get what we want, we get what we deserve...


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
I guess the problem that I have is that you are a rational man.
I just don't see that in the political mess.


I'm going mostly on history, Richard. And the numbers.

There are all kinds of surprising facts in the numbers. For example, the
percentage of employed adults now is higher than it was in the '50s.
Manufacturing output in the US, except for the recessionary downturn, has
been on a steady climb for decades.

These things don't mean that everything is really Ok. They do mean that our
problems are structural.

--
Ed Huntress