
Getty Images
Remember the Republicans' debt-ceiling crisis in 2011? It was about a year and a half ago when GOP leaders handed President Obama a ransom note: accept more than $2 trillion in debt reduction or the economy gets it. The parties agreed to more than $1 trillion in cuts, but agreed they needed more time to work on a larger agreement.
So, they crafted a mechanism intended to force both sides to the negotiating table -- a sword of Damocles hanging over Washington's head that would be so severe, Democrats and Republicans would have a strong incentive to strike a deal to avoid the drastic consequences.
The mechanism was automatic sequestration cuts -- or "the sequester" -- valued at about $1.2 trillion, half of which would come from the Pentagon. (Democrats originally wanted automatic tax hikes to motivate the GOP, but Republicans refused -- even hypothetical tax increases were deemed outrageous -- and deep Defense cuts were used instead.)
These cuts kick in three weeks from today, and so far, the two sides aren't close. Democrats want a balanced deal the GOP should find tolerable -- spending cuts on one side of the ledger, revenue from closed tax loopholes on the other. Republicans, meanwhile, say they're prepared to simply let the sequester happen, regardless of the consequences to the economy, the military, or the public.
At least, that's what they say publicly. Behind the scenes, the GOP strategy is on shaky ground.
One thing is becoming clear: Republicans want to find a way to replace the cuts in the sequester, despite some loud rhetoric to the contrary.
Top House Republican aides privately concede that the politics of allowing the cuts to hit -- layoffs, furloughs and a stalled economic recovery -- are tough to stomach and they would prefer to make a deal, on their terms of course. [...]
A top GOP leadership aide, speaking anonymously to divulge internal thinking, laid out 10 options that the House GOP leadership would be willing to accept, along with savings estimates developed by GOP policy aides, in order to avoid the sequester.
So, the good news is, Republicans are not actively seeking a course that would hurt the country on purpose. The bad news is, they're still struggling with the whole "compromise" concept.
To date, with just 21 days to go, Republicans leaders have offered nothing -- there is no sequester alternative on the table, and in this Congress, no bills to replace the sequester have even been written. There are reportedly 10 different scenarios Republican leaders would be willing to consider, but all 10 are made up entirely of deep spending cuts and would not include so much as a penny in additional revenue.
In other words, Republicans want to replace sequestration with a package that gives them 100% of what they want and 0% of what Democrats want.
This after a national campaign in which Democrats voiced support for a balanced approach, and the American electorate strongly agreed.
It's nice, I suppose, that there are so many Republican-friendly options to choose from -- the menu includes everything from raising the Medicare eligibility age to chained CPI, cutting federal pensions to cutting agricultural subsidies -- but so long as GOP officials expect a 100%/0% deal, the likelihood of a breakthrough is remote.
That said, with three weeks to go, I expect some movement away from the intransigent status quo. Put aside the rhetoric and the posturing and we're left with a picture in which Democrats and Republicans actually have the same goal: to get rid of the sequester. The GOP doesn't want to admit it, but a bipartisan deal, featuring a combination of spending cuts and revenue from closed tax loopholes and unnecessary deductions could come together with relative ease.
What's more, if the automatic sequestration cuts happen, and the economy tanks, Republicans probably realize this will be their fault and they'll likely get the blame. It's why Josh Green wrote late yesterday that a "Republican crackup over the sequester" almost seems inevitable.
As the process unfolds, I'd like to take a moment to throw in my own suggestion: get rid of the sequester. Don't try to replace it, don't struggle to find some satisfying ratio that pleases both sides, don't delay it for a few months, just cancel it. The deficit is already shrinking, spending has already been cut, and if policymakers want to do even more to improve the nation's long-term finances, they can work on a deal without some dangerous threat hanging over their heads.
Sequestration was a bad idea. There's no reason both sides can't agree to get rid of the darn thing and start fighting over something else.





The following article was first written in 1998. I am relinking it here not so much as to say "I told you so", but to point out that the long term economic future of the United States was obvious, or should have been obvious, to the people who are awarded lofty degrees and paid huge salaries to comprehend such things. Instead, the economists persisted in explaining away the visible signs of gathering troubles and earned their salaries by justifying why the policies that robbed the poor to give to the rich should continue unabated.
United States Congressional Record - March 17, 1993 - Vol. #33, page H-1303 - Speaker- Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise."
Imagine for a moment that someone inherits a farm. Let's say that the farm has good topsoil, a good well, good breeding stock, good seed, and excellent farm equipment in good repair. Prior to passing into the control of the present owner the farm did a good business selling vegetables, meat, and dairy products to the local market, and it made a small profit.
But let us suppose for a moment that the present owner of the farm doesn't understand farming, or isn't even really interested in learning. The present owner has no objection to standing around looking good, so he stays at the farm, standing in front of it, looking good to passers by.
Of course, the bills still come in, so our farmer puts them on his credit card. When that bill comes due he uses another credit card, Then another. Pretty soon the interest payments alone are higher than his bills and the banks get nervous and call him. No problem. Our farmer sells the tractor, takes the money around to the various credit cards, the food store, the utilities, and pays off all his bills. Then he stands around in front of the farm looking good to passers-by, the lord of his domain.
Well, the bills still come in. Again the credit cards get loaded up. So, this time our farmer sells the harvester. Then later on, the cattle, then the chickens, then the seeds, then he leases the well to his neighbor and finally sells the top soil from his farm to another farm down the road whose soil is getting tired. The cash is taken around to the various creditors, the food store, the utilities, etc.
Now at this point, our farmer thinks everything is okay. The bills are paid, he has a little cash in his pocket, and everything is fine.
Of course, you know better. The farm simply does not exist any more; it's just an empty lot with a few buildings, and soon they will be gone as well. The path from the farmer's present condition to seizure of the property for unpaid taxes is a foregone conclusion, even if the farmer doesn't look far enough ahead to see it.
Poor, dumb, stupid farmer.
That farmer is our government, and our business leaders.
Just as our hypothetical farm has lost its soil, livestock, seed, and farm equipment, America has lost its manufacturing ability. Short sighted business leaders, with as little interest in manufacturing as our farmer had in farming, decided their own personal bonuses would be higher if they simply sold their factories rather than ran them. After WW2, the 27 American TV companies including Zenith, Emerson, RCA, GE, etc. led the world in TV technology. Then, the owners of the patents on TV technology decided they didn't need to dirty their hands by actually making the TV sets themselves any more, and they started selling licenses to manufacture, which the Japanese bought.
By 1987, the only remaining American TV company was Zenith. The patent holders get their money, but the American products which can be sold overseas are gone, along with the jobs to make them. (Today Zenith is owned by a Korean electronics company.)
The same happened in high-tech electronics. The integrated circuit was invented in the United States. But rather than focus on selling integrated circuits, the companies that owned that technology sold the machines to MAKE integrated circuits around the world, and now America sells very few chips anywhere. The patent holders have their money, but the cash flow from sales of manufactured goods, and the jobs that go with them, are gone. When Seymour Cray needed custom chips for his supercomputers, he had to order them from Japan.
The same thing has been happening in aviation. The airplane was invented in the United States, and through the 60s, we sold a lot of them around the world. But lately, all aircraft sales to foreign countries involve "offsets", a portion of the core technology that gets licensed to the purchasing nation and gets manufactured there. Bit by bit, the core technology gets bled off, taking with it jobs, and cash flow from the sale of those manufactured products. Along the way, the rights to manufacture American inventions outside America leak away on a steadily increasing basis. Even the mighty F-16 is now being manufactured overseas, under license.
To cover the loss of manufacturing jobs, our government has invented the catch phrase "service economy". This is the idiotic notion that we don't need to actually sell manufactured products; that we can grow and prosper our nation by doing each other's laundry for a fee. To conceal the loss of manufacturing jobs, the government has legislated into existence thousands upon thousands of useless paper-shuffling jobs, and declared their necessity by fiat. The most obvious is the income tax which has been so obfuscated by the government that half of you had to rely on an outside expert to figure out just what all those incomprehensible words really meant. By this device, the government has replaced those jobs that made products to sell with an equal number of jobs that produce nothing whatsoever of any worth, except to keep the unemployment figures down. This over-burdening of the American people with gratuitous regulations and paperwork has accomplished nothing except to obfuscate the loss of manufacturing jobs, and to transform the American character from innovators and inventors creating new products to that of minor clerks, peeking under each other's seat cushions for lost change.
So, with most of our manufacturing now gone, just what DOES America make? Trouble, mostly. With 4% of the world's population and 18% of the economy, we have 50% of all the lawyers, all looking to make a killing by looting those few industries that still call America home (like Microsoft). Kids don't want to be scientists and engineers; they've seen how little such people are valued in our country. Based on recent history, kids see the "big bucks" are in corporate law, specifically investment banking, leveraged buyouts, greenmail, junk bonds, in short what other countries describe as "trying to make money grow by shaking it side to side".
With America's ability to actually produce products that can compete on the open world market in decline, it's no wonder that the balance of trade is the problem it is. Nobody buys our export products because we just don't make that many any more, and like or not, we have to buy our appliances from the people who make them, which are NOT Americans. (When Ampex invented the VCR, they didn't even bother trying to find an American company to make it, they immediately sold the rights to Japan).
So, what do all these countries on the plus side of the trade imbalance do with their surplus billions? Well, they have been loaning it right back to us!
Our government engages in a practice politely called "deficit spending". Other terms which would aptly describe the practice include "counterfeiting" and "check kiting", but it all comes down to the same thing; spending money one does not actually have.
What would be a prison offense for a normal citizen was rendered legal for the government by the Federal Reserve Act. This was not a popular piece of legislation. In fact the Democrats had campaigned in 1912 on a platform of rejection of the creation of a private bank in charge of a fiat money system. Nevertheless, on December 23, 1913, taking advantage of the absence of congressmen opposed to the creation of a fiat monetary system during the Christmas break, the Federal Reserve Act was passed.
Years later, during the great depression, Congressman Louis T. McFadden (who served twelve years as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency) asked for congressional investigations of criminal conspiracy to establish the privately owned 'Federal Reserve System'. He requested impeachment of Federal officers who had violated oaths of office both in establishing and directing the Federal Reserve -- imploring Congress to investigate an incredible scope of overt criminal acts by the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve Banks. McFadden even suggested that the Federal Reserve deliberately triggered the great stock market crash of 1929, in order to eventually force the passage of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, which suspended the gold standard.
In describing the FED, McFadden remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the misadministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
Why all the fuss over the gold standard?
Well it goes back to the original Founding Fathers and the meaning of the word "dollar". "Dollar" is actually a weight measure of silver, 371.25 grains, to be exact. Our American silver dollars are actually heavier, since other metals were added for durability. But that 371.25 grains of silver WAS the dollar, matching in weight an unbroken chain of accepted monetary units that reached back through the Spanish Milled Dollar, the Dutch Daller, back to the German Thaler; the product of a silver mine which sold its product in coins of an exact weight. The Coinage Act of 1792 defined our dollar to exactly match in weight the silver dollars in use around the world, and then defined the gold dollar to be that amount of gold which would equal the worth of silver in a silver dollar, 24.75 grains, 1/15 the weight of the silver in a silver dollar.
US Silver Dollar
US Gold Dollar (same scale)
So, what's wrong with this? Nothing really. When you, as a citizen, hold a silver dollar or a gold dollar in your hand, you hold that actual worth of metal. Nothing the government can do can change the worth of the money in your control.
Take the Roman Silver Denarius pictured above. The Roman Empire is long gone, but the money that Rome issued still has worth because the coins themselves had inherent worth. Long after the collapse of the empire, Roman silver coins were still used as money, because the silver in the coin itself did not depend on the issuing government for its worth.
Of course, carrying around too much coin can be bothersome, so many nations, including our own, issued paper notes as a convenience. But that paper currency of the nation was just a convenience. The gold and silver certificates were merely "claim checks" for the equivalent weight of gold or silver held in the treasury, and which would be produced on demand when the certificate was presented. But in the end, the lawful dollar of the United States was 371.25 grains of silver, or 24.75 grains of gold.
The problem with this system from the point of view of the government or the banks is that it limits the amount of money they can work with. When the bank runs out of silver or gold (or the equivalent certificates) it can no longer lend any more money with which to earn interest. When the government runs out of gold or silver (or the equivalent certificates) it can no longer spend money (just like the rest of us).
The immediate effect of ending the gold standard was that with the paper dollar no longer legally dependent on 371.25 grains of silver or 24.75 grains of gold, more paper dollars (now called "Federal Reserve Notes") could be printed, their actual worth no longer under the control of the citizens but under the control of the issuing central bank, based on the total number of dollars printed (or created as credit lines) divided by the estimated worth of the nation's assets. The more dollars which are created out of thin air, the less each one is worth.
A federal Reserve Note.
The swindle of the system is simple. The Federal Reserve Bank hires the US Treasury to print up some money. The Federal Reserve only actually pays the treasury for the cost of the printing, they do NOT pay $1 for each 1$ printed. But the Federal Reserve turns around and loans out that money (or credit line) to banks at full face value, those banks which have exhausted their deposits then loan that Federal Reserve fiat money to you, and you must repay it in the full dollar value (plus interest) in work product, even though the Federal Reserve printed that money for pennies, or created it out of thin air in a computer.
As the Federal Reserve overprints more money, the money supply inflates, and too much money starts chasing too few goods and services, which means prices go up. But contrary to the charade put on by the Federal Reserve, inflation doesn't just come and go due to some arcane sorcery. The Federal Reserve can halt inflation any time it wants to by simply shutting down those printing presses. It therefore follows that both inflation and recession are fully under the control of the Federal Reserve. This means the cycle of inflation and recession is an intentional one; a gigantic heartbeat that pumps paper certificates out to the working class, while pumping real wealth in to the owners of the banks.
Over time, that excess of printing has destroyed the value of that dollar you think you have. If you want to know by just how much, go out and try to purchase 371.25 grains of silver right now. Usually, the deterioration is gradual. Sometimes, it has to be obvious, such as the 1985 devaluation (done to halt the trade imbalance) which triggered the Japanese real-estate grab in this country.
Many politicians have attempted to reverse this process.
During the term of Abraham Lincoln, the banks demanded high interest to fund the civil war, reaching as high as 24% to 36%. Lincoln, rather than sell the country into permanent debt on the interest bearing bank notes, ordered the US Treasury to issue new legal tender popularly called Greenbacks, that funded the civil war without incurring huge interest debts. The system worked so well there was popular support for continuing the system after the end of the war, but issuance of the Greenbacks was halted after Lincoln was assassinated.
John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order 11110, requiring the Treasury Department to start printing and issuing silver certificates for the silver then remaining in the US Treasury. Kennedy understood, as did Lincoln, that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. This was the reason he signed Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the Federal Reserve System.
John F. Kennedy's United States Note.
That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".
Kennedy's E.O. was never implemented following his assassination, and shortly afterwards, United States silver coins were taken out of circulation and replaced with the copper clad slugs in use today. These two events, the failure to print new silver certificates, and the substitution of worthless slugs for our silver coins, may explain why the Warren Commission included on its panel John J. McCloy, a man with no experience in crime, law enforcement, or national security, but who had been the President of the Chase Manhattan Bank.
It should be noted that the banks themselves are still using the gold standard. Accounts are still settled between major national banks by the transfer of gold bullion.
So here we are with a bank that legally counterfeits the money you borrow but expects a full value (plus interest) repayment. But what's good for the Federal Reserve is good for the government itself, and this is where we get back into that funny word "deficit spending". The government spends more money than it takes in. It has for many years now. The Federal Reserve, being the only lawful source of this fiat money, prints up the excess cash the government needs (or manufactures a credit line in a computer). This extra cash is treated as a loan, in order to keep the government overspending from further eroding the worth of the dollar in the world market. The government (meaning the taxpayers) is on the hook for the full face value, plus interest.
But there's another problem. The government is borrowing so much money that it drives the interest rates up! You pay MORE interest on your mortgage, car loan, and credit cards, because the government cannot balance its books. That extra interest you pay is therefore another hidden tax. The government, in its "generosity", gives you a tax credit on mortgage interest that is higher because of their own borrowing!
During the 80s, as exports dropped, and jobs moved from manufacturing to lower paying "service sector" jobs, the US tax base declined. In order to keep the jobless rate from rising, a massive defense program called the Strategic Defense Initiative was cranked up, but since this program produced no exportable product, it produced no taxable sales revenues, and hence the money poured into the project accelerated the government decline into debt. Because manufacturing was on the decline, fewer start-up companies were approaching the lending institutions, so the government loosened up the rules (while increasing the insurable deposit limit) to allow "investments" in more high risk ventures, most of which turned out to be frauds, or worse, money laundering operations for drug criminals. This includes Whitewater, Flowerwood, and Castle Grande. Despite shifting the S&L loss primarily onto the taxpayers (to reassure foreign investors that the taxpayers still made America a safe place to park their surplus cash) the government plunged further into debt.
In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush(I) administrations, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor. Many of those nations which had enjoyed huge trade surpluses started loaning that profit back to the United States with the stipulation that we work on our manufacturing, clean up our infrastructure, raise taxes, in short, clean up our act, so that investment in America makes sense!
However, we didn't quite do that.
There has been some shuffling around to try to conceal the real scope of the problem. Over the last several years, the Federal Government has been sending less tax money back to the states than it takes in in taxes. This means that the states have to borrow MORE money to cover their obligations. The net result is that the debt is being transferred to the states, to conceal its true size. The government will easily admit to a $3 trillion "publicly held" debt, grudgingly concede that it's "unfunded liability" brings that number to almost $7 trillion, but the real hard truth is that total government debt, state and federal, is now over $14 trillion dollars, or about 50,000 for every man, woman, and child inside the United States. Since 1960, the taxpayers have shelled out $15 trillion in interest payments alone, while the principal continues to rise.
Yet another stunt the government has pulled is to "borrow" from the various trust funds under its control. Some $2 billion has vanished from the trust accounts of Native Americans (presently suing the Departments of the Interior and Treasury), and nearly � of a TRILLION dollars has been removed from your Social Security retirement trust fund and spent in the last 8 years.
If the government has to borrow your retirement money when things are supposed to be so good, under what conditions can it repay the money? Or is that government IOU in your retirement account merely a promise to either tax you a second time or stiff you on the benefits you thought you were paying for?
In the last 8 years, during what are supposed to be record setting good times, the Federal government has nearly DOUBLED its debt load. The estimated interest on the debt equals all the personal income tax paid by all Americans. Our government is so deep in debt that it cannot get out.
This brings us to the issue of collateral. We've borrowed so much money the lenders are getting nervous. Back during the Johnson administration Charles DeGaulle demanded the United States collateralize the loans owed to France in gold and started carting out the bullion from the treasury. This caused several other nations to demand the same and President Nixon had to slam the gold window closed or the treasury would have been emptied, since the United States was even then in debt for more money than the treasury could cover in gold.
But Nixon had to collateralize that debt somehow, and he hit upon the plan of quietly setting aside huge tracts of American land with their mineral rights in reserve to cover the outstanding debts. But since the American people were already angered over the war in Vietnam, Nixon couldn't very well admit that he was apportioning off chunks of the United States to the holders of foreign debt. So, Nixon invented the Environmental Protection Agency and passed draconian environmental laws which served to grab land with vast natural resources away from the owners and lock it away, and even more, prove to the holders of the foreign debt that US citizens were not drilling. mining, or otherwise developing those resources. From that day to this, as the government sinks deeper into debt, the government grabs more and more land, declares it a wilderness or "roadless area" or "heritage river" or "wetlands" or any one of over a dozen other such obfuscated labels, but in the end the result is the same. We The People may not use the land, in many cases are not even allowed to enter the land.
This is not about conservation, it is about collateral. YOUR land is being stolen by the government and used to secure loans the government really had no business taking out in the first place. Given that the government cannot get out of debt, and is collateralizing more and more land to avoid foreclosure, the day is not long off when the people of the United States will one day wake up and discover they are no longer citizens, but tenants.
The following map shows the current extent of all lands grabbed by the government under the guise of environmentalism.
click for full size image
In short, the United States is in deep trouble. We have lost a huge amount of our manufacturing capacity, and those products we still make do not compete well on the world market, despite the steady devaluation of the dollar. In short we have vast debts to pay and little to pay them with. Like the foolish Farmer we have sold the machinery that allowed us to prosper, and we stand around shaking our investment portfolios back and forth in the hopes that the money inside will somehow grow all by itself. It won't. It never has. The very best that can be said is that money gets moved from one person to the other.
Those nations and banks to whom we owe money have been very patient indeed with us. They know that our economies are so tightly entwined that what hurts America will hurt them. But sooner or later, possibly after a market crash, someone, in order to pay their own debts, will demand their loans to the United States be paid. Rather than get caught with "bad paper", there will be a run on the United States government.
In addition to the government debt of $14 trillion, our businesses are home to trillions more in foreign investment, kept here by the promise that the American taxpayer will be made to cover all losses. But with our manufacturing in decline and our schools producing far more lawyers than anything else, it should be obvious to the prudent observer that the American taxpayer, even if so inclined, may not be able to cover the losses of their own government, let alone a foreign investor. That has to be making them nervous as well.
This brings us to the "equities markets", most notably the stock market. Over the last several years a constant media harangue has assured us that the soaring numbers of the stock market are the sole measure of how good our economy is. But close examination of those high-priced stocks reveals that most are heavily over-valued; their price the result of market forces rather than underlying worth (earnings ability). Amazon.com, as one example, has had a terrific run-up of its stock price, even though the company itself has yet to show a profit.
The government has admitted to using covert means to prevent a market downturn; to keep the stock prices at an artificially high and overvalued level, in order to wave those impressive numbers about as "proof" that everything is okay so that the taxpayers go back to work and pay more taxes. But in order to keep those stock prices up above their actual worth, demand must be maintained to keep the prices high. In other words, NEW investors must constantly be brought into the bottom of the pyramid to keep the prices of the stocks at the top from dropping. Hence the onslaught of commercials luring neophyte investors into the stock market via "online trading". Like any Ponzi scheme, the stock market will collapse when no more new buyers can be dragged in at the bottom. As the market starts to stutter, governments (most recently Britain) have moved to dump huge reserves of gold onto the world market to depress gold prices and deter investors from deserting the stock market for gold.
Some years back I worked on the film version of "The Day The Bubble Burst", and in between playing a stock broker, I got to spend some time with the show's consultant, Mr. William Hupt, who had been on the trading floor in 1929 as it all fell apart. He still had, framed, that last strip of ticker tape that ushered in the Great Depression, and he shared some stories which have a bearing on what is going on today.
The first story Bill shared is that there had been early indications of a dangerously over-valued market, running too deep on margin, and like the Plunge Protection Team, the largest investment houses, in particular the House of Morgan, attempted to reverse the early corrections by purchasing large blocks of stock in order to create market demand and drive the prices back up. It worked all but the last time.
The second story Bill shared was that a friend of his, riding up to his office in September of 1929, overheard the elevator operator chatting about his own stock portfolio, and his investments. Something about that image of an elevator operator playing the market set off warning signals, and Bill's friend immediately liquidated his entire portfolio, just in time to miss the great crash. Many people, including the actor Charlie Chaplin, had recognized the "recruitment" of that segment of society that did NOT have risk capital as new investors as a desperate attempt to prop up an overvalued market, and got out in time to save their own personal fortunes.
In the end, there is no such thing as a free lunch. You cannot make money grow in value by shaking it back and forth from one bank to another. You cannot prosper a nation by doing each other's laundry, or filling out their government mandated and greatly obfuscated paperwork, or flinging stock certificates around which may have as little real worth as Federal Reserve Notes. To make money, to show a profit, you must make products that somebody else wants to buy, and sadly, that is a capability the United States has allowed to slip away in great measure. The "service economy" was political propaganda to make the public believe that the decline of our manufacturing ability was a good thing.
Our nation is broke, bankrupt, and having sold much of its machinery and technology (or given it away to political donors), is unable to easily return to those endeavors which once made our nation great. Our infrastructure is in decay (the percentage of roads in the US with major damage doubled last year alone), our public schools unable to produce a workforce able to function in a high-tech manufacturing environment, and those managers end engineers with manufacturing experience have in great part been lured away to other nations. The severity of our total government debt has reached a point where the promise that the taxpayers can be made to cover any foreign investment loss rings hollow, because we can no longer pay the debts our government has now.
Our nation is in trouble. We don't make many of the products we used to make. Consequently we don't have the products to sell that we used to. We don't even make most of the products we need ourselves (like that computer you're staring at this very moment). Result: we have a massive trade imbalance. Cash is flowing out of the nation, and it's not coming back in anywhere near as fast. There's no way to spin it; that is a major problem. Our nation is becoming poorer, it is hopelessly in debt, and all the artificial escalation of stock prices cannot conceal that.
And as the artificially pumped up stock market continues to decline, the true scale of the economic horror which is the product of decades of government corruption, will become apparent to all.
A very good book on the subversion of our money system is, "Money" by Jim Ewert, and is available athttp://www.principiapub.com
Joe Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (MADE IN JAPAN) for 6 a.m. While his coffeepot (MADE IN CHINA) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (MADE IN HONG KONG). He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA), designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE) and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA).
After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA) he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN) to the radio (MADE IN INDIA) he got in his car (MADE IN GERMANY) and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.
At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day, Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (MADE IN BRAZIL) poured himself a glass of wine (MADE IN FRANCE) and turned on his TV (MADE IN INDONESIA), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in.....AMERICA.....
Start your own damn blog. Or pitch your post ideas to TRM.
Geez, narcissism at its worst. Do you really expect anyone to read that diatribe?
Spam at it's worst...
TL;DR.
Since crumbling infrastructure and climate change all threaten national security, put both in pentagon spending. Trading a couple of bombers for a new domestic sources of clean energy or an updated power grid will serve all of us well.
This is an excellent idea: the resilience of the national infrastructure *is* a matter of national security. (It actually is, in traditional warfare; industrial and logistical capacities are a huge part of what wins extended traditional wars, even though thankfully one of those isn't on the horizon.) So...
Infrastructure and its destruction became the heart of the allies WWII strategies. The US developed the concept of strategic bombing, and along with the British, selectively targeted the infrastructure of Germany that allowed them to carry on the war: highways, railroads, bridges, dams, factories, refineries and more. Here in the US, we are now allowing neglect to do the same thing to our infrastructure. Sure, blowing something up is faster and more spectacular, but a highway or bridge crumbling due to neglect is just as useless as one that was taken out by a 2000 lb. bomb. Climate change is worse than the effects of bombing or neglect, because the effects will resonate for at least 1000 years, according to climate scientists. Once the sea level rises to inundate coastal cities, they are gone, period. Cut the Pentagon budget, and if the defense contractors are such geniuses, they will do what their predecessors did after WWI and WWII, converting their wartime production into civilian products. If not, the free market says they can and should fail. Surely the repubs aren't repudiating free market capitalism, are they?
I think it is a good idea too, but for intellectual honesty, you have to draw a straight line between potential military conflict and the US military. Fortunately, there is one, because changing patterns will make once productive land with ample water supplies no longer able to support the same populations. That is why the Climate Change forecast is for massive wars across the globe. Many of the climate change experts mention this point, but they bury the military implications as a footnote. It deserves to be elevated.
It's because the historical response to these sorts of shortages has for the last 60,000 years been massive migrations. The trouble is whenever such mass migrations happen, there are always massive wars. People along the Ganges river in India and the floodable areas in the world's river deltas are usually pointed to. The one I worry about long term is China, because they share a long border with a Nuclear armed state which will likely be a beneficiary of climate change, as vast underpopulated areas of Siberia are opened for supporting much greater populations.
There's a reason why the original interstate highway system of the 1950s was called the National Defense Highway System. Eisenhower had seen the German autobahns and how much they helped the Wehrmacht in the war.
Where are the Eisenhowers in today's GOP? We could sure use a few. All the current Republicans care about is No More Taxes On The Rich. No closing loopholes for the benefit of the country! Why can't they see that we are desperately in need of revenue to build things like our infrastructure? Why can't they see how unfair it is to put everything on the backs of the elderly and the poor?
Or is it that they really don't give a damn about anyone but the very rich? I sometimes think that they will only stop whining when there are no entitlements and the upper 2% controls all the wealth and the rest of us are begging for their mercy.
Personally, I would like to see the Defense Department cuts. The DOD's budget is bloated. Hell we are still fighting the Cold War. We can easily find significate cuts in their budget without damaging our security one bit. Of course, the downside is the effect the cuts will have on the economy, but we can probably absorb them. Republicans don't believe in Keynes anyway.
we could easily offset the losses and even improve the numbers with investments in infrastructure.
The biggest problem with our spending is that instead of buying things we actually need for the public we are buying stuff to treat GOP's imaginary defense related "erectile dysfunction".
You want $1.2 trillion in cuts? Cancel the don't-work F-35.
When we speak about "Defense" please read: Contractors (Boeing, Lockheed/Martin, et.al) which isn't the same a money being spent on "the troops". Nor is the rehabilitation that is sorely needed by both Active Duty military and the Veterans Administration counted in! The GOTP for all of their propaganda don't really believe in "providing for our troops", just for the Oligarchy that builds the pie in the sky machinery!
Cut the Defense budget by 20%, use half to pay down that debt and the other half for infrastructure & R&D in newer energy efficient ways of doing business.
I do hope the Republicans have begun, in earnest, their tracking of blame!
They will yet again be blamed for the bad economic things they help cause, and whether or not they are counting, we are!
We'll be voting against you sequester Republicans in 2014 - you can bet on it! -Kevo
This is all just drama. You people are sweating a lousy $60 billion/yr net in cuts. ($120B-$60B new tax revenue) Really? That's about what the Sandy relief cost. Unclutch those pearls before you strangle yourself. Tsk.
If it's that little of an issue then it shouldn't be a big deal to swap out the defense cuts for...oh I don't know...say the Veterans Jobs bill?
or ANY jobs bill..
Forget it. Real cuts are worth the pain. They are a rarity, and the country needs to see it's possible without the country being hurt.
Thats just it Shooter...as uasual you haven't been paying attention
Cutting Government spending Does hurt the country. It's not that we are spending money it's that we are spending money on the wrong things and in the wrong way.
Give the lower and middle class jobs in the form of public works projects or any other kind of infrastructure investment and they will spend the money and get the economy moving...Give the money to the wealthy and they send it on vacation.
We do not need any more planes tanks or aircraft carriers what we need are Bridges that don't fall down.
Oh and just to cut you completely off at the knees...those wages the lower and middle class get automatically pay into Social Security and Medicare thereby making them more stable and solvent for years to come.
And before you decide to go all "Galt" on me Show me one, ONE instance in the whole of human history where Supply-side economics actually worked...
I asked you to do that MONTHS AGO and you are still dodging it!
It is no big deal until the cuts hit your neighborhood...
In the local news here today, payments to timber-dependent communities are to be cut 10% this month as part of the sequester. Our local Congressman, the honorable Greg Walden, is vigorously fighting the cuts.
To comprehend just how screwed up this is, take a look at Josephine County, one of the recipients of these funds.
The majority of Jo. Co. is federal timber lands. For decades, cutting fees from these lands were nearly the only source of revenue needed for the county budget.
Over cutting in this county and the surrounding Pacific Northwest coupled with cheap lumber from Canada has led to a severe downturn in the timber industry. (Basic economics: if you clear cut all your accessible old growth timber, you will not be able to compete with Canadian clear cutters in the future.) Loss of timber fees essentially zeroes out the county government budget.
The Feds have been sending funds to Jo. Co. to make up for the lack of cutting fees for about a decade to give them time to transition from timber fees. Jo. Co. voter response has been to refuse to raise their own property taxes, believing the federal funds will go on indefinitely.
Josephine County property tax rates are lower than just about anywhere else in the country -- about $1.50 per $10,000 valuation, compared to about $15 per $10,000 for the vast majority of Oregon residents. Josephine County is also ground zero for Tea Party yahoos in the southern part of the state.
This month's federal payment is the last one, and yet Jo. Co. residents still reject property tax rates sufficient to fund even basic services, such as a county jail. With the threat of sequester, people are outraged that the federal payment will be reduced 10% and the GOP Congressman and member of the leadership, Greg Walden, is leading the charge.
So, the Tea Party and a GOP House Leadership member are fighting to exempt from cuts a mass welfare payment that subsidizes absurdly low property tax rates for GOP voters. Just wait until the payments end and the sob stories about the closing of the jail and county court system begin, all courtesy of the GOP/Tea Party conservatives.
Gah, property tax rates are per $1,000 valuation. My bad.
John
They will just blame it on an ineffective "Big Government" that is unresponsive to the needs of the people and try to make themselves look good doing it.
Supply side... a product that was all supply side... computers. An economy that's all supply side... Williston North Dakota. A state that's all supply side, the entire Middle East, pick a country.
As for bridges, I just love that you people snap your fingers, and poof! My idea is so awesome that it's self evidently going to save the world. You have no idea how business works and why your claims that building bridges will save us are just childlike.
So no, building bridges isn't going to do squat for the economy, just a little bit for whatever local area the projects alight. I'm betting you're one of those guys that have no clue where cookies come from and think elves is as good an explanation as any.
Shooter, once again your intentionally inaccurate statements are too numerous to refute in their entirety, so I will focus on your statement about computers.
If by 'supply side' you mean federal directed command economy, then your statement about computers is true.
The first modern computer was made by the feds for the development of nuclear weapons, in particular the plutonium fission (Nagasaki-type) bomb that today serves as the trigger for current warheads.
The shrinking of computer components over the first three decades of the products existence was primarily due to cost-plus contracts awarded to developers that met size and mass targets set by the feds -- publicly for the space program, actually set by the Dept. of Defense for ICBM's. (My baby shoes were bought on wages from one such project).
The feds have spent billions to foster the development of physically small, light-weight computers. Smacks much more of socialist than supply-side economics.
Shooter
Computers: Computers were originally financed by the DoD and NASA which is why most of the original giants in the field were defense contractors like IBM, Texas Instruments and GE.
Williston North Dakota: pop 16,006 eightth largest city in North dakota. Most of the money there comes from the oil and gas boom and they still lose more of it than they retain. As evidence of that
Not what I would consider a ringing endorsement.
As for the middle east...I have spent more time there than I care to remember and I can tell you a couple of things.
First all natural citizens of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are related to the royal family in some way shape form or fashion and receive subsidies as part of that relationship.
Second most of the states depend on a large immigrant labor force from places like Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. They have some of the worst labor conditions and lowest wages in the world and since they are "Guest Workers" or worse undocumented they are completely off the books.
I could go on but I see no reason in being needlessly cruel by further exploiting your ignorance.
As far as public works Projects:
The federal interstate system: $425 Billion over 35 years and worth every cent
Hoover Dam: $821 Million over 5 years and more than paid for in use.
All of this and a hundred more examples I could point to show why your version of economics doesn't work for times of crisis. That,s why Regan decided to stimulate the economy with deficit spending on Defense and then raised Taxes to bring the cost back into line with growth.
Should I go on or are you going to continue whining about how the bad old liberals don't know anything about finance...We do and better than you.
No, what I meant was that consumers really had no clue what to do with computers or even want to buy one for thousands, same for cell phones. Yet because far-sighted individuals kept pushing and pushing, eventually computers were appreciated. There was no real demand for computers, but the supply became great enough to overcome consumer objections. And that's when the great Tech revolution appeared.
Supply side.
Dragoon, Williston and the ME both are fueled by supply of Oil and Gas. Neither place would matter a hill of beans if not for the abundance of a supply of a saleable commodity. Surely you're not going to argue otherwise. Even in your explanation of guest workers you acknowledge the need for money and business first, with jobs to follow.
As for the Interstate and Hoover dam, I agree they are excellent projects, but that are no longer possible. The best you can do is a couple lousy bridges that don't help anyone but the companies hired to build them. You might as well hire people to dig holes and fill them up again, assuming the EPA would even let you.
Look you can try and fight reality, but I can do this all day. You can see the real relationship of labor to capital every day in front of our Home Depot. Labor is a bunch of guys standing around with nothing to do until - someone with an idea and the MONEY to pursue that idea - arrives needing help. Supply side.
That is not supply side...the axiom of supply side economics is that if you remove government spending and rely on the private sector to develop and expand and keep overhead (in this case in the form of taxes and safety expenditures) those at the top do well then it will improve the fortunes of those at the bottom and none of your examples shows that happening.
As for public works there is no need to reinvent the wheel when we could invent flight, or in this case change the countries energy infrastructure, update the power grid, and those are all just for starters.
You seem to like to make a great deal out of regulation and oversight as an inconvenience and the simple fact is that they are only if you are trying to avoid them to maximize profit over safety security and responsibility...when you do that you get things like the deep water horizon and the mess in the Gulf of Mexico...unless you are just going to outright say that having things like that happen are acceptable as the price of doing business...My suggestion is that you go and read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair and decide how much you are willing to accept as a consumer before you answer.
You keep saying that I am fighting reality. I am not fighting reality...I am fighting FOR reality!
Shooter,
Essentially the entire oil production industry of the Middle East is made of a series of inefficient state-owned extractive monopolies. Even the more efficient operators in the region, such as Saudi, are still grossly inefficient compared to similar operations in the US and Europe.
If this is your model for a desirable economic system, you must really miss the old Soviet Union.
No John. the ME is simply an example of where business came first, and jobs came later. Supply side.
Dragoon, have you ever had a business? If not, you have no idea what the reality of business is.
Shooter,
Supply side economics seems to mean something different to you than it does to the rest of society. You can just make stuff up if you want to, but unless you are a charismatic leading a cult of personality you will only confuse people and turn them off.
Who do you think you are, Ayn Rand?
John, here is the wiki version of supply side, which mirrors my points that business comes first, then demand.
Computers were a success not because of demand but because of supply, Williston and the ME are successes because they have something that can generate lots of money. That money was required before Williston and the ME generated any kind of demand.
Business comes first, then there's money to spend. It's only rocket science to people with no experience in business.
Shooter,
Read the definition in your own post.
The Middle East is not a low regulatory environment.
Computers were developed based on regular demand from the US government.
Based on your own verbage, not the part you clipped from elsewhere, the Soviet Union was a supply side economy due to the vast extraction activities (oil, gas, gold, diamonds, platinum, etc.) forming the backbone of the Soviet economy.
Which, like your posts in this thread, is just silly.
John, I'm writing about where jobs come from, not political systems. No matter what the political system, without something saleable, be it oil, diamonds, platinum, or selling pennants at Yankee stadium there will be no jobs. Maybe you missed the observation that labor is like a bunch of people standing around with nothing to do - until someone with an idea and the MONEY to pursue that idea arrives - needing help.
Call it trickle down if you like, I don't care. It still works from the top down. You can protest all you like, but you have to have a person with an idea and the money before any jobs appear. You seem to think the bunch of people standing around with nothing to do are going to miraculously self organize, and build a house with no money, no property, no tools, and no supplies. That's not going to happen.
As for computers, how big were they in DARPA days versus now? Becoming an industry required risk, investment, marketing, R&D outside the military, etc, etc, etc. DARPA got left in the dust, they didn't commercialize computers. It took business to create what the computer industry is today.
It's like NIH doing pharma research. If they find something useful, they auction it off to Big Pharma, who then takes the basic research, does more to find out how to scale production, run tests, jump through FDA hoops, market the resulting product, and get it to patients. In short, without business to do the grunt work, whatever the NIH finds is worthless. Just like what DARPA had wasn't worth much until business got involved.
Business first then jobs. If business can't find a way to profit from something, then it dies with no jobs and no tax revenues. And that happens most of the time. This isn't rocket science, but without experience it's something you really can't grasp.
Tell me again why the repukes are super-duper Keynesian economics believers when it comes to cuts to the militarization industry and gung-ho supply siders for all other parts of the economy? Inconsistency anyone?
Worse than inconsistent, for spending on physical infrastructure (e.g. bridges, ports) and workforce development (e.g. preschools, schools, college grants and loans, trade schools) typically generate more revenue than the original spending. Defense spending generally yields a much lower economic return.
Inconsistency is what happens in a mind that thinks "2+2=4" is only a theory.
Of course Kev...only been 4 years of failure..no sense it blaming it on Bammy yet. *rolling eyes*...
Obama would have to work hard to be as big a failure as W. It takes pure genius to take a massive budget surplus and turn it into record deficits in just one year, but that's exactly what he did.
Umm-I predicted a while ago that the Republicans would not let the sequester happen and would cave. All of this posturing is for their constituents because the campaign contributors have the Republicans on a short leash. That and the loss of defense jobs in some Republican districts is creating a panic. The problem is how to cave a third time without losing face. It can't be done. Their voters are going to figure that one out real soon.
The Congressional Progressive Caucas has released "The Balancing Act" the substitute Sequestration bill into the record. Where is the Conservatives' proposal, and where is the President's. It's time to put in writing which tax loopholes need closing, at what incomes, etc. It's time to see which projects from the DOD ought to be dropped, etc. It's time to see the revenue/cuts/proposed expenditures that can keep the economy from going into a recession again and put people back to work. The Progressive plan names specifics. If the others would put forth their ideas, we could at least see IF there's any consensus at all, as well as seeing what each wants saved, cut, promoted. It's time to stop playing games. Too many Americans are hurting.
The compromise is very simple:
REPEAL THE SEQUESTER
That's it.