Is Obama the Next Herbert Hoover?
 

Obama has been in office over a year and from my point of view the economy is worse now than it was a year ago and now I fear it is going to get progressively worse. It is about a year ago that I first pointed out my difficulties as a small business owner, in the credit market. Credit was frozen, new credit was unavailable, interest rates and fees were significantly increased in some cases more than doubled, that condition still exists today. The costs to do business, including employing people or hiring new people, are high with the risks of those costs going higher - nothing has been done. If action in these two had areas occurred, I think the economy would be better today than it is.

Now we have heard talk for the past few weeks about small business tax breaks for new hires. So guess what, no one is hiring now because they need to know what the plans are. The President and Congress need to stop talking and act.

Capital gains taxes are going up, taxes on people who can invest in growth are going up, taxes on banks are going up, regulations on making money are going to increase, the national debt continues to rise, the value of the dollar declines, we have no energy plan, no health care plan, no social security fix, and we are still in two wars. Is Obama, the next Herbert Hoover?

Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your forecasts for the economic future don't jive with most experts

From my own personal experience I'd say the economy is better now than a year ago. So much so that I'm no longer hording every dollar I'm earning and I'm starting to buy things that are not necessary.

They don't "jive" with my normal optimistic nature either. They don't "jive" with what I want or what is in my best interests either.

The problem with Hoover is that in-spite of his rhetoric, he actively tried to "fix" the economy and everything he did, failed or was too little too late. Is that what Obama is doing?

i wonder if there is **any** exercise in projection that conservatives will not indulge. after 30 bloody years of neo-liberalism, which has its origins in hoover period republican Horror at the new deal, now there's a comparison between obama and herbert hoover?

surreal.

Why, exactly, would he be the next "Herbert Hoover?" Herbert Hoover has become what he has become primarily because he believed in a number of principles and economic theories that you actually seem to agree with. He was a firm believer in "Ricardian equivalence," or the notion that any fiscal stimulus now will simply become tax hikes in the future, and so a balanced budget was the sound strategy to fight a recession. It is hard to have one's cake and eat it too: one can't simultaneously complain about the size of the stimulus package and then compare Obama to the guy who has become what he has become because he didn't believe in stimulus spending.

Sure, to a degree I actually agree with the comparison, but that is mostly because I believe that Obama's stimulus spending should have been more significant, and that his regulations don't go far enough. But I'd be surprised if you thought the same.

When do you think that will spread to other segments of the economy? Or, do you think it has already? Do you fear a "double dip" recession or are you confident we have turned the corner?

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

I ask the question. To suggest there is nothing worthy of consideration between the two conditions, in my view is surreal.

Most economists I've read about are cautiously optimistic about future trending. Most people don't see it because the current positive trends are either future-looking or coincidental factors that most people either overlook or don't see in their everyday lives.

I have yet to hear from an economist that is more than minimally concerned about a double-dip recession. Of course, many of the economists I read about are Canadian. But they do speak about the American economy as well.

Perhaps he won't be, I don't know. And I certainly don't want a depression. My basic view is that our economy can not be micro-managed and that attempts to "fix" the economy can do more harm than good. Is Obama so smart that he won't make errors similar to those made in the past? So far the answer seems to be no.

There is a difference between Hoover's words and his actions. His actions, I would not have supported.

Regulations need to add value. Banks are not doing what they need to do, because of the fight between them and the administration, it is counter-productive. If Obama mandated they loan money in accordance to normal standard prior to the financial crisis, that type of regulation may have worked. Stimulus targeted to the correct segments of the economy may have worked better than his initial plan. So, yes I can support regulation and stimulus.

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

One of the key factors are the assumptions used by those economist. I think given certain conditions many would easily agree there could be a double dip. For example, many say we have not seen the worst of the commercial real-estate market decline. Depending on what happens, that could trigger another "panic" in the financial sector. Many agree that during the past few quarters GDP is artificially high due to inventory build up and government spending, these conditions will not hold true in the up coming quarters and real economic activity has to take up the slack. Absent a real up tick in economic activity, we could easily see a double dip.

How "Hooverian" of you.

Now, how is Obama being so smart related to being the new Herbert Hoover?
Personally I think that the stimulus package was too small. That would certainly make him a bit like Hoover. I just have a hard time understanding the sense that you would find him to be like Hoover. Is it just the coincidence that he is also presiding during a recession? Or do you really think that Obama should be doing more of the things that are commonly associated with FDR, like a stronger devaluation of the currency, more spending, and more regulations?

The "hard time" you have with me has nothing to do with the question. How do you respond to the question, and why? Please, stop making every post I make something that it is not. I will always clearly explain my views and respond to questions.

My feeling is that Obama is trying to micro-manage the economy in a manner similar (although the specific issues are different), to Hoover. Hoover thought what he was doing would work, so does Obama. Hoover felt that government actions in the areas he felt were important would trigger economic activity or improve conditions, so does Obama. Hoover was President during poor economic conditions, so is Obama, Hoover made things worse, will Obama? That is the question in my mind, that is the question I seek input from others on. I am open to what others have to say on the issue, primarily because of the psychological impact perceptions have on the economy. I want to understand why the market responds the way it does, for that I need to understand how others see things.

Probably not coincidentally, this is a Rush Limblob topic today.

if you want to have a discussion based on a historical parallel things are typically helped along by having at least some idea of the historical material that's being played with---because in this case that's all we're seeing here---a rhetorical trial balloon coming from the fetid intellectual swamp of the right to see if against all reason and historical information obama can be superimposed on herbert hoover, who was a freemarketeer for the most part, presumably so that the republicans can then sweep in on some imaginary plane and frame exactly the same capitalist metaphysics that's work out o so fucking well over the past 30 years as if it is some kind of new deal. i dont know who they imagine they're talking to...maybe the same imaginary constituency they think voted for scott brown. the republicans now seem to think they're independent of their own record of being in power, independent of the bush period, independent of history, independent of reality so they can draw all other idenpendents their way.

so in that independent of interest kinda way we're being asked to consider in an independent of historical information so independent of logic scenario whether obama might be equated with herbert hoover.

i mean seriously ace. this isn't even your fault. you just gave it a try.
it's perfectly reasonable to see this move for what it is and not talk about the questions you pose. to do that would accept the frame you trot out. i think the frame is absurd.

Except that Hoover didn't try to micro manage the economy. In fact, the whole "micro managing" of the economy (or at least the accusations that he was micro managing the economy) came during the FDR years.

Hoover's response was a mix of very limited regulation and a concern for deficits, coupled with a belief in the ricardian equivalence you have defended elsewhere.

In other words, there might even be a parallel to Obama, but for precisely the opposite of the reason that you seem to think they are alike. That is why I have a hard time understanding this thread, unless it is some new found attempt to rewrite history and blame Hoover for being too hands on, as opposed to not enough.

ace....why do you think Obama is to blame for zero net job growth between 2000-2009...or the lowest economic output in 70 years...or a decline in household net worth....or the lost decade for the economy?

The lost decade for the economy

Historic parallels:

wow, you waited a whole 4 posts to contribute your usual "you are so dumb, why would you even bring up such a stupid point of discussion, and therefore we shall not talk about this any further" post. as the discussions here fall into the shitter and the number of contributors dwindle, the moderators might wonder how to return to constructive political debate and encourage participation. since you are down to only two gluttons willing to endure your self-indulgent, mightier-than-thou, conserva-bashing - i certainly hope you have the introspection to recognize yourself as a major part of the problem.

I hope you're not implying that ace is anything other than free-thinking independent.

The point of discussion raised by ace was typical ace nonsense...from a guy who has repeatedly said he doesnt have a clue what Obams's policies are, believes Obama is a socialist and incompetent, and wants him to fail....and consistently ignores any facts that challenge his opinion.

Whats wrong with calling ace out on the bullshit partisan post that it is?

his posts said nothing about ace's position. he framed it as a "conservative" assertion. as ace is one of the few people who will actually still engage you guys, you might as well indulge his posits. likemindedness does not create an environment for debate.

Cool....I disagree. From my experience, ace and other conservatives here (not all) generally run away or dodge the question when their assertions are challenged with facts.

So maybe you can address a follow up question.

How is Obama responsible for the lost economic decade of 2000-09?

As I've said many times before whenever this sort of victimization pops up, you get out what you put in. The idea that the secret to active and exciting contributions is to accept at face value assumptions that go against the historical record is nonsense.

To put this in a different way, if I started a thread saying that Obama is the new Reagan, because just like Reagan Obama wants to regulate a bunch of industries, I'd be called out on it, and rightfully so. First because Obama is not trying to pass massive regulations (though some people might argue that he is, which could be an interesting argument), and second because the Reagan presidency was known precisely by its DEregulation of many industries.

Obama can't at the same time be a far left socialist and a new Hoover. Obama can't be at the same time a reckless tax and spend democrat and a new Hoover.

Is there an argument to be made for Obama being like Hoover is certain respects? Sure. But that argument involves admitting things that go in the exact opposite direction of where Ace wants to take this. It involves saying things that Obama, like Hoover, is too concerned with deficits, or that Obama, like Hoover, should have passed a larger stimulus bill. Claiming that Obama is like Hoover because he was too meddlesome and wanted the state to play too active a role in the economy is a falsification of history. It would be like claiming that FDR was a supply sider who only cut taxes and let the markets fix themselves.



And I have no problem engaging conservative points of view. Gary Becker, Richard Posner, Mankiw, Lee Rockwell, and even "pop conservatives" like Megan McArdle generally have interesting things to say. I have a problem engaging the Rush Limbaugh point of view of the day. Whether or not that is a true "conservative" position can be debated, but it is undeniable that he is at least a self-proclaimed conservative.

he is no more responsible for it than a us senator for two of those years and a president for one of those years can be. that amount can not possibly be measured.

Really, ace should've worded his OP as "If we assume the economy is tanking, and we assume Obama is responsible for it, is Obama responsible for the economy tanking?"

And we could've all just agreed. The problem in this case, of course, is that the assumptions are invalid.

As dc noted above, you can't have it both ways. Obama can't be both an incompetent President who has done nothing in his whole term in office AND a socialist tyrant who is taking massive steps to destroy our economy.

Obama was not in the Senate or the WH when the previous administration and Congress enacted the 01 and 03 tax cuts, heavily weighted to the top bracket, but promising jobs and economic growth to benefit the middle class.

At a cost of over $1 trillion, it provided neither jobs nor economic growth...and yet, ace wants more the same.

If you dont like the Obama approach with the initial stimulus program (not big enough, IMO) and the proposed new jobs initiative (might not have been necessary with a bigger initial stimulus), what is your solution to help recover from that "lost decade"?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Cimarron:

What dont you like about the proposal for a $5,000 tax credit for each new small business hire along with reimbursement of Social Security payroll taxes for businesses that increase wages or hours for existing workers (both capped to ensure that funds go to small businesses) ...and using $30 billion from money repaid to the TARP fund to help community banks offer small-business loans through incentives to those banks to borrow money from the Treasury at a reduced rate?

Or the banking/financial services legislation passed by the House last year to regulate the housing finance marketing, derivatives and related financial instruments, and to require large banks to self-fund (in advance) any future potential bail-outs.

I know what ace thinks...free markets, with little or no govt regulation, and supply side, trickle down economics will fix everything...and nothing else is acceptable or debatable... which, for me personally, makes discussion with him a waste of time.

all i'm going to say is that i have far more conservative friends and colleagues than you might expect. what differentiates most of them from what happens here at times---sadly more than i would prefer---is that these folk are not impressed with populist conservative politics in the limbaugh mode. they dont recycle the arguments. they dont use the same techniques. they dont put you in the position of having to accept ridiculous premises in order to get to leading questions that aren't geared around discussion at all because the game is built into the premises.

and they don't act all offended or bewildered when problems of premise, of logic, of data, of coherence come up.
they're part of what a discussion is. they're part of the game.

but there are also other folk who don't seem to get that their positions come from anywhere in particular, that don't seem to understand that part of disagreement about politics is disagreement about data, about how things are defined and connected together, about consequences of arguments as they play out logically or as they play out in the world.
these are also the folk who seem to default into playing the victim when they get called out on things.
which is always strange because getting called out on things is also part of the game of argument.
and it's possible to respond to being called out on things without climbing on the victim train.
it's just the victim train is so cheap and easy and it shortcircuits things because from that point its not about argument its about you and your injury.
and that you can control.




but most of my conservative friends and colleagues are pretty interesting, smart informed people with whom it is possible to have interesting discussions about any number of things. there are some of those folk here as well. it's good to have a few drinks with the folk in meat-space and it'd be interesting to have a few with the folk i take as parallel here.

so don't get your panties all in a bunch cimmaron. it's all playtime.

and if you get called on arguments, just roll with it.
it's easy.
just answer the questions.
play the game.
sheesh.

I never said I wanted in on this conversation. I'm not blaming Obama for last decade.

I was gonna say......

When this current recession landed in Obama's lap (a gift from George W Bush and Bill Clinton to a lesser degree) Obama looked to Hoover to see what NOT to do.

Hoover believed in the free market sorting itself out, so he did nothing, or very little. The result was 10 years of economic turmoil.

The arguement has always been that if Hoover had acted swiftly and decisively that the Great Depression (a term somewhat coined by Hoover who didn't want to use the term "panic" which had been used in the past to label recessions and instead called it "a slight depression in the economic growth curve") could have been at least tempered.


What Hoover did:

Higher taxes and tariffs
Shrunken money supply.
There was no direct relief for the unemployed. They could beg, steal, or starve, though Hoover claimed that they prospered selling apples.

The unemployment rate was approximately 33 percent, (not the 25 percent the revisionist Right now claims),

Almost all banks in 38 states had been closed.

In most of the other states and Washington, D.C., withdrawals were limited to 5 percent of deposits, and in Texas to $10 per day.

The New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago commodity exchange had been closed, indefinitely. The financial system had effectively collapsed.


What Roosevelt did:

Guaranteed bank deposits
Made the federal government a temporary non-voting preferred shareholder in thousands of suddenly undercapitalized banks (more than half the banks in the country),
Refinanced millions of residential and farm mortgages,
Put millions of people to work in relief programs,
Increased the money supply,
Repealed Prohibition of alcoholic beverages
Legislated reduced working hours and improved working conditions for the whole work force.

In the next two years, he set up the Securities and Exchange Commission, created the Social Security system, broadened the powers of the Federal Reserve to equal those of other nations’ central banks,

The key to evaluating Roosevelt’s performance at combating the Depression is the statistical treatment of many millions of unemployed engaged in his massive workfare programs, which were called “internal improvements” in Jackson's time, and are called “infrastructure” now. The government hired about 60 percent of the unemployed in public-works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York City’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the heroic aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. They also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. They employed 50,000 schoolteachers, rebuilt the entire rural school system of the country, and employed 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors, and painters, including the young Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

Source:

Roosevelt & the Revisionists - Conrad Black - National Review Online


Now I'm not saying that Obama is FDR, not even close. If anything, I am disappointed in him so fare, however, he certainly is not mirroring anything that was done by Herbert Hoover.

Like the Depression of the 30's which was caused by the unregulated buying and selling of stock without the necessary capital to back it up this recession was caused by the unregulated buying and selling of real estate without the necessary capital to back it up.

Until such time as the government enacts legislation to change the banking rules, this can and will happen again. (I would say that perspective home owners should need to have at least 10% down on any real estate purchase.)

All I know and care about is what are the opportunities to be had for those losing jobs or starting out.

What I see are minimum wage or slightly higher jobs replacing decent good paying jobs. The employers know that jobs are now a commodity and are doing whatever they want (forcing people to work ot, not giving benefits, etc. there is no protection for employees anymore),

So the reality is that people who made $15, 20+ an hour are making much, much less. So unless, jobs start paying more (which then causes inflation) this country will continue a downward spiral.

Employers need to be held accountable, government needs to help those losing decent paying jobs to find wages similar.

I grew up believing if a man worked 40 hours and lived within his means, he should be able to save and live a normal standard of living life.... that is not the case in this country any longer. Too much greed from the top and politicians and too few in the middle left to fight.

True.

It's a race to the bottom.

We have closed all the factories down and moved all those decent paying jobs to China in the name of cheap shit.

My parents bought a Maytag Washing Machine in 1977 for about $5 or 600 bucks. It was made in North America and it lasted 30 years.

I could walk into Home Depot tonight and buy a similar Maytag TONIGHT and it would cost about $600 bucks. It will be made in Indonesia though and it might last 5 years if I am lucky. People would have a fucking heart attack if they had to pay $1,500.00 for a fucking Washing Machine now (cause that would be what $600 from 1977 brought forward would cost).

All those poor bastards working at Maytag in Ohio have been laid off. Gone are the $20.00 an hour jobs. Replaced by minimum wage working at the Walmart.

Nobody wants to pay the freight anymore.

Obama Hoover like? Really? Wow, just wow. That's like saying Reagan was actually commie bastard.

When in doubt ignore facts and attack, attack, attack! Something will surely stick to the wall at some point.

I wonder where and when there will be a breaking point? I'm not sure the tea baggers are all wrong. I mean other then blaming Obama for the debt and spending racked up by 8 yrs of GOP rule I think their onto something. We're spending it faster then we can print it it seems. How long can that go on? I keep having this reoccurring nightmare where i wake up and the yen and dollar are one to one. Of course that will make paying off China easier.

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

This is true too. The only thing the US seems to make any more that the rest of the world wants are movies and TV shows. It's almost as if you're not doing that at some point you end up a Wal-Mart stocking shelves with stuff made elsewhere. How can a country survive like that?

Saying there is no protection for workers is bullshit. Sorry, Pan, it is. There are laws in every state to prevent what you're talking about. You can't force people to work OT, etc.

Now if the workers are unwilling to report violations, that's on them

I know of quite a few company's that have mandatory OT, right here in Ohio.

Most of those companies are clients of mine, mostly manufacturing co's or distribution centers.

Not sure that's legal, even if you're compensating them for it.

I admit I don't know the legality of it, but it does happen.

First, you have to find not just you but others willing to report it. That takes bravery and the belief you are 100% right and your job will be protected.

Secondly, you have to file with (in Ohio it's the EEOC) AND hope their workload let's them get to you before you are fired. And if you are fired, good luck finding a job while you await their investigation and then hearings.

Ohio being a "Right to work" state, employers can fire you for any reason whatsoever and if you were considered "part-time" (which most are), good luck getting unemployment.

Then IF the EEOC hears it, the company has the money to have lawyers while you sit there hoping the others don't back down.

I have seen it first hand and know of a few friends that tried, lost their jobs and nothing could be done.

Then if you are like me, where a client, who has a history of being extremely aggressive and has a street rep as being a very angry man who likes to hurt people, threatens you, touches you and you call the cops to have paperwork in case something does happen (which IS legal, once a client/patient threatens and/or touches you confidentiality goes out the window and that person can be held accountable for their actions). And upon calling the police you lose your job because the boss says "Mr. CEO has a good repoire with the police and bullshit calls like this embarrass him and this company, you're fired."

I called around, there were lawyers willing to hear the case but there was as one attorney said, "no money in the case and it comes down to he/said she said and it is very hard to convince a jury that you were within your rights."

So, no... in the state of Ohio there is very little protection and with budgets being cut it is getting worse. To say there is worker protection is bullshit and the employers know it.

---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------

No, mandatory overtime IS legal. In fact there is no law that limits the number of hours an employer can make you work.

Mandatory Overtime | Forced Overtime

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

It's not no one wants to pay the freight anymore....it's no one can AFFORD to pay anymore.

I haven't lived in Ohio long enough to know the labor laws. I know the PA laws better, as my dad has been in HR there for 25 years.

the manufacturing sector's been entirey reorganized. everyone notices but sometimes it seems like nobody knows, like saying it's violating some rule or worse like farting in church. kanban just in time supply chains lean production flexibility all those words meant production becoming fragmented then mobile then a matter of subcontracting in contexts where labor costs had become variable and so the "logic" of capitalism in its oldest form, straight exploitation of people who sell their labor power for a wage, particularly in contexts where working people cannot organize themselves into unions in order to protect their own interests....this is what neoliberalism has brought back in a shiny new form.

i can imagine policy/regulation actions that could break up the globalized system of labor exploitation, of deterritorialized production managed via supply chain interfaces---but i cant quite see who would intiate such a thing given that access to cheap goods has been presented to us as an end in itself and as desirable in part because price is severed from an idea of production.

so maybe opening up commercial lending and aggressively supporting new business? and extending the new-deal style public works projects to make more jobs available.

thing is that the employment problems are results of structural transformations that the entire center-right american political establishment has cheerleaded along. it's just come to a head under obama. i do not envy the administration having to figure out how to deal with the consequences of what amounts to 30 years of herbert hoover-style economic ideology.

They haven't brought unions back yet. AND 30+ years of trashing unions may make it hard. Until the government allows people to vote for unions and employers avtually stay and don't just up and move... we'll see. But, I would definitely at this point say, neo-liberalism hasn't even come close to protecting the workers.

I've been saying this for 20 years. I am a strong believer that to "level" the playing field somewhat, any business doing business within the US (including ALL IMPORTS), should abide by US labor and safety laws. I believe if Nike wants to pay people overseas to make their shoes, then they should have to pay them minimum wage, have the same safety standards AND should be paying into a retirement fund similar to SS or better for those workers.

Commercial lending to small businesses is a start as is rebuilding the infrastructure. But, we need to find ways to cut down the top heaviness in companies. Stop allowing leveraged buyouts and mergers that cost billions in loans and the company will never see that kind of revenue.


That's not true, this has finally hit everyone, but this recession has been going on in one sense or another for a very long time.

Factories have been closing down, moving out and the job market paid less for the past 30+ years.

Companies have been given tax abatement and credits while laying off thousands, moving overseas and paying their upper management outrageous salaries to kill jobs. This was shown in MANY 80's movies. They warned us, they showed us what was coming... I don't believe the main stream people wanted it, but the CEO's and special interest groups were able to buy the politicians and so policy kept moving in a VERY BAD DIRECTION. Clinton may have been able to change things but once the GOP got Congress and went after him for EVERYTHING he did and kept his hands tied while feeding us bullshit scandals (whitewater, Lewinsky, etc) that went nowhere but kept us from seeing how the GOP was continuing bad policy.

Bush, I think may have tried to change things but he was a puppet for Cheney and Wall Street.

Obama, I think wants the best for America, in his mind... BUT he has not changed ANYTHING In DC, he tried to push an extremely costly and the wrong healthcare plan down our throats and he continues to pass blame and be pessimistic, instead of being a true leader. Plus, as Bush was a puppet for the radical right and the ultra rich in many ways... Obama is a puppet for the extreme radical left and going too far in any direction is bad and will only make matters worse.

If we are to truly heal and regain our national prestige and greatness, we need leaders on BOTH sides willing to work for that and put into policy the BEST plans for us, not some party platform that was decided by the extremists controlling the party.

That's a chicken / egg scenario.

Walmart thrives in Blue Collar towns.

I can't help but think of how disruptive this idea is. You're basically looking at placing a cost-intensive premium on a lot of goods. Unless I'm reading this wrong, are you suggesting that a factory operating in Asia should pay their workers an American minimum wage in addition to giving them a retirement fund? You know what that would do? Kill a large portion of American imports, which would lead to inflation. You think it's bad now? Just unroll this plan and watch China, Taiwan, etc., and all the American companies that use those places for manufacturing decide to seek out other markets. Foreign companies would say "forget it" entirely or would say "fine," making the average consumer product skyrocket. Companies such as Nike (you know, pretty much any multinational company) would likely boost their prices as a result as well. The CPI would leap off the charts, and American purchasing power would plummet.

You would essentially have to do this on an international level, such as through the WTO or something. But good luck with that. Either way? The cost of living would put even more stress on the lower classes. It would level the global playing field perhaps (i.e. if it were done internationally, maybe through a "global minimum wage and health & safety standard), but at the cost of the average American, not for their benefit. It would benefit the Third World mostly. It would be like making a sacrifice in your quality of life for the benefit of others, while ignoring the impact on economies of scale.

I grow weary of this. Obama is as much a puppet for the "extreme radical left" as G. W. Bush was for the devil.

If there is an "extreme radical left" in America, they are on the fringe and they have next to no political power. Or maybe I need to keep translating some kind of "Americanspeak." "Extreme radical left" in Americanspeak means "centre-left," right? To much of the rest of the world, it means something else entirely.

Pushing a "health care plan" in the form of rules regarding the purchasing of health insurance is a far cry from universal health care as some people know it. If there is a problem with it, it's that it is too compromising to those on the right.

EDIT: Oh, and I should probably note that your above idea about making it a requirement to have U.S. labour laws, health & safety, minimum wages, and social security for anyone who exports to the U.S. is by far more "extreme radical left" thinking than anything Obama has ever come up with.

I still want to know what, exactly, are Obama's "far left" policies.

We really need to get on the same page as to what, exactly, we mean by "far left." We seem to have different ideas of what that entails. Most of those I consider on the "far left" I would image look at everything Obama stands for and does as too far to the right...by quite a bit.

i've thought for a long time that a universal minimum wage a good idea because it would erase the incentives that underpin the present arrangement (subcontractors located in places with lowest wages, usually most repressive conditions in terms of organizing etc have a competitive advantage assuming technology as neutral...the buyer of course has no responsibility for anything, mere pursues enlightened self-interest in that grand selfblinding american way)---and it would make distance/transport a different kind of problem than it now is...so what i think would result is a fragmentation of the present arrangement---which would create "redundant" production systems because it would make production/distribution more regionally oriented. so i think a universal minimum wage would be a good thing for job creation. i would imagine that the state can and should play an active role in making sure that this is the outcome too.

but of course this would be greeted as some Communist initiative by the right....but the curious thing is that a re-regionalizing of capitalist production would bring the beast closer to the People, which you'd think a main conservative concern/issue. so i would think conservatives--libertarian types in particular---might be persuaded to support the end if not the means.

but nothing would get anywhere so long as this "obama is a left extremist" nonsense persists. this is about shutting down dialogue. it's funny that it so often comes accompanied by accusations that the rejection of this absurd claim that obama is a leftist is a shutting down of dialogue. go figure.

But the thing is that even in an American context his proposals are to the right of what was considered "moderate" not too long ago. The current HCR proposal is significantly less sweeping than what Clinton proposed 16 years ago, and it is very close to what republicans were advocating at that time.

Obama is a rorschach blot for those who dislike him. Whatever they dislike, he is that. So people say "he's an ineffective placater", or "he's a left-wing puppet", or "he's a nazi facist". Some people are saying more than one of these things despite the utter incoherence of that.

An interesting aspect of this whole idea is that it might not need to come to that, this idea of a universal minimum wage to reorganize production. It might simply happen due to peak oil and when demand finally picks up again, forcing prices to spiral out of control to the point where companies can only make production and distribution work on a localized scale. Then we will see the disappearance of burgeoning trade shipments from Asia. We've already seen a shift to local food production and consumption, based mainly on environmental concerns. Peak oil may force it for most of commerce one day for entirely different reasons.

What did Limbaugh say, I don't listen to his show? I wish I could say I was the first to raise the question regarding an Obama comparison to Hoover, but I am not. Given the conditions of the economy and the potential for it to turn positive or negative based on Obama's actions makes the comparison worth while. In addition it has been Obama who has consistently brought up this recession as being the worst since the Depression.

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

I don't.

First, I have always said Presidents get too much blame and too much credit...
Second, our economy goes through cycles...
Third, the costs to employ have been on the rise for some time due to many factors...
Fourth, credit markets are frozen...
Etc., Etc., Etc.

If you want to discuss what I actually wrote regarding Obama and employment let me know. On the margins, Obama's negativity, his attacks against business, his nuturing an environment of uncertainty, is hindering "job creation". In a nut shell, how do we go from my actual position to "why do you think Obama is to blame for zero net job growth between 2000-2009..."?

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

He is not. Nor is 2000-2009 a lost decade.

The issue I am interested in is related to the future, not the past.

You may want another opportunity to discuss Bush, but it is no longer important.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Hoover did act. His actions hurt rather than helped. The Depression was manufactured based on the acts of government. Do you disagree with that premise?

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Again, you miss the point. Will Obama's actions lead us into a double dip recession or a depression, if so why or why not? I have my view on the question, what is yours?

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

It is relative.

Also, there is a difference between what he says and how he governs.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

I recall giving a list of politicians and ranking them from right to left to illustrate how I would define "far left", I don't recall reading a response from anyone.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

From a practical point of view this would be totally un-workable. At some point you will always regress to relative value of labor compared to real purchasing power.

The attempt to rewrite history is so obvious... If one really feels that Obama is a major interventionist, and that the government is meddling "too much" in the economy, the obvious comparison would be FDR, not Hoover. But FDR is still a popular president, so that would be a bad political move for the republicans. So what do you do? Reinvent history in order to force a parallel with an unpopular president instead of a popular one.

There are certain things that there is near consensus about regarding the great depression: the failures of government include raising taxes, taking too long to come off the gold standard to avoid deflation, and too modest regulations regarding the banking industry. Obama, unlike Hoover, cannot be blamed for any of this. If you take the classic libertarian explanation for the great depression, it was caused by expansionist monetary policies earlier that decade. If that was the case, then the parallel in the current situation would be Bush and Greenspan's aggressive interest rate reduction early in the 2000s.

Oh, and Im still waiting to hear what, specifically, are Obama's far left policies.

How long ago was that? I think I may have missed it.

Post #30 from "Obama at House Republican retreat" thread.



---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

I am not trying to and I can not rewrite history.

I recall discussions on FDR, the New Deal and its impact on the Depression. As usual ther was disagreement. I do not believe New Deal policies lead to the end of the Depression. FDR's New Deal would fall under my general view that our economy can not be micro-managed and that government often does more harm than good due to the unintended consequences and the fact that government is less efficient at allocating capital and resources than the "free market."

I am interested in understanding what you think the future impact of Obama's policies will be. I fear there will be similarities with Hoover, I actually hope I am wrong. I also, understand that the psychological impact of Obama can have a bigger impact than his actual policies. I think to a degree Reagan benefited from that.

If Obama's policies have a similar impact to Hoover's it will be precisely because he did too little, not too much.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

Oh, and please name Obama's policies that are significantly more leftist than Clinton's.

Obama so far has raised taxes less than Clinton, has proposed a HCR that is less sweeping than Clinton's, and has been less likely to spend on social programs than Clinton.

What do you think he needs to do more of, if anything at this point?

Really, and who did the "Free Market" coming running to 2 years ago for a trillion dollars?

You had assholes making 100 million dollars a year on their knees begging to guys making 100 grand a year.

I don't think you realize just how close we came to a complete economic melt down with AIG. If the gov't had not stepped in to save their asses, it quite literally would have been - put your money in the ATM and nothing comes out because there is no money.

Just as the stock market crash of 29 proved that there needed to be regulations put in palce governing the speculating on equities and buying equities on credit in order to prevent a future crash, the recent melt down proved that there needs to be regulations as to just how stupid of a risk banks can take on real estate speculation and buying real estate without actual cash.

It is my humble opininion that NO-ONE should be given a mortgage without at least 10% down. There has to be some risk to the buyer.

Well, I know a bunch of out of work people that could turn their pants pockets out and call them "Obama ears" ... (in direct comparison to the Hoover Ears of the Great Depression).. but I don't think it's all Obama's fault of course. Nor do I think it's all Bush's fault either. Clinton had his fair share of responsibility for the real estate crisis. But I think, Obama needs to LEAD from the front.. enuff of the blame game, we need clear direction and FDR like vision, FDR like investments in infrastructure and jobs, BUT, more importantly, imo.. we need FDR like leadership and confidence restored... We need programs that get people back to work NOW and we need someone to turn things around. I think that's what people voted for when they voted for "Change". Sure, it isn't gonna happen over night, but Obama's timing and priorities have been out of sync with the people imo... specific to the economy, people are hurting now and his waiting til his second year to address the Jobs piece was a mis-step. Tasking a do nothing congress to come up with watered down healthcare reform... that was tied up in congress for a large part of his first year in office, while there's a Democratic majority (and still no HCR accomplishment)... bleh, Cap and Trade/climate change.. seriously? Additionally, the much needed bailouts end up pitting Wallstreet against Mainstreet, and he feeds this animosity in how he's treating the banks.. during a credit crisis! I mean, we're all in this together at this point, just lead us out. Don't point fingers just lead us out, give us your vision and direction and LEAD. I think people are seriously losing faith and looked to Obama to change it up. It isn't too late for Obama, and I pray for him often, and don't want to get in a serious debate, because it's obvious to me that many of you are much more well read than I am; however, if Obama don't act fast and get people back to work AND fix the credit crisis, things may not turn around enough for him to be re-elected, which imo, will seriously hurt his legacy and draw even more comparisons to Hoover in that he'll only serve one term in office.

Quoted for serious truth and a huge HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------- Post added at 02:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

You have the biggest problem in there, but it's not 10% down.

When you have people making 10's and 100's of millions while their companies go bankrupt, begging for government to help them and when our tax money goes to them to bail them out, they cut jobs, cut pay and still give millions upon millions in bonuses to their top people......

THERE IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! It's not the hard worker, it's not the people who have given up hope and are unable to ever achieve the "American Dream" because these assholes making all the money and getting government to pay their bonuses won't pay people honest wages or even take a pay cut until they turn their companies around.

I love how people want to blame even a small part on the little guy who works 40 hour weeks and is trying to live the American dream by buying a house and raising his kids in a home they own and don't have to rent.

IF THE COMPANIES PAID DECENT WAGES, IF THERE WAS MANUFACTURING JOBS, IF COMPANIES PAID EMPLOYEES $15-20 AN HOUR INSTEAD OF $8-9 WHILE UPPER MANAGEMENT MAKES MILLIONS.... WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.

IT IS NOT THE LITTLE GUY'S FAULT AND TO IMPLY IT IS BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT HOUSES THEY "COULDN'T AFFORD" OR "THEY SHOULD WORK MORE JOBS" OR WHATEVER IS GIVING THOSE GREDY MOTHER FUCKING ASSES WHO MAKE THE MILLIONS A BLANK CHECK TO CONTINUE SLAVE FUCKING LABOR.... WHO DO YOU THINK OWNS ALL THE FUCKING RENTAL PROPERTIES, OR THOSE MORTGAGES?????

Sorry for the caps and to yell but the economy and the fucked up government INCLUDING OBAMA who continues to allow these "bonuses and salaries" in companies WE FUCKING BAILED OUT just pisses me off.

It's not the fucking companies that need bailed out it's the American worker who works making wages that even 30 years ago were low.

I think this is misleading. I myself don't earn in the $15-20 range, but I can guarantee you my boss (owner of the company) isn't making anywhere near a million dollars for what he does. He's lucky to be a thousandaire.

I think you are speaking to the most sensational aspects of the labour market. You are overlooking the lion's share of the market with this statement. Small business makes up a large proportion of jobs in America. You are also overlooking how disruptive it would be to somehow raise employee wages across the board by 100% or so. I'm sure there are many companies whose owners draw under six figures from the company---and certainly less than seven.

I also happen to believe the American Dream is bullshit. It's not for everyone. It's only for those who are disciplined enough, and perhaps a little bit lucky. Situations are different, and results may vary.

Companies and their executives shouldn't take all the blame, and certainly not across the board at that. There were many borrowers who took on too much risk (and too much house) and are getting burned for it. What about them?

These are businesses being run; they aren't charities. A majority of job growth comes from small business. Artificially high wages would choke that out.

Besides, Obama doesn't have the executive power to set executive pay. I doubt it's even constitutional for Congress to pass any laws on the matter.

The only way that I could see a way around that is if they are receiving any govn't money. If they are then congress should have the right to set executive salaries.

Pan: There's only handful of executives in coroporate america. And yes the may have a 7 figure salary. But the vast majority of business owners don't draw that big a salary from the company.

I'm not talking about the little guys either. I'm talking about the banks, the finance companies like Bear Stearns. The little guys still shaft the employees though, they just don't own companies making that kind of money, but most still pay labor wages that are below what they should be while they drive Hummers, live in mansions and take vacations whenever they want.

My point is, if WE the taxpayers give AIG, banks, etc bailouts and they take them... then we have EVERY right to demand how they structure their pays, their bonuses and where the money goes.

There comes a time like with pro sports, entertainment and with these clowns when you have to ask how much is enough, especially when the average American is living paycheck to paycheck, barely able to live.

I also love the argument from those who say, "well, cut back on what you spend on, you can do it."

Everyone I know has cut back, but that's not supposed to be America. America always prided itself on building a better standard of living for the next generation. To tell people to lower their standard of living and shut up and accept that those who own the companies and those who exploit the workers for wages that are not livable.... is a kick in the teeth to all that America once stood for.

There are no opportunities out there now. The money is not available and people don't make enough.

We are in a fucking depression, maybe not the whole country but where I live and in other parts where I have friends telling me how they are having to work 2 40 hour jobs just to live.... it's a depression to me.... Government, the finance people and press can all say how great things are but when you see people losing everything because those who employ them want a bigger house or a new vacation house... you should get pissed.

We are in this all together and when you have people losing everything while the employers are working on 3rd and 4th vacation homes, or the next new expensive car, or talking about how labor costs too much and they may have to layoff while they give themselves huge paychecks and don't take a hit.... something is wrong and you should get pissed.

To be in this together means when one end of the economic scale is tilted way down the other end needs to shift some of that weight back to even out the scales. Otherwise, you eventually have no one that can afford your product and you company closes and you are struggling. Unless, of course you are extremely wealthy, then you can buy everything up and we become truly a slave labor nation.

You seem to not understand that it's a very small minority of people making millions of dollars as company ceo's. I deal with hundreds of companies in my profession. Business owners salaries that I deal with range from 75k to 200k. I even have a professional baseball team for a client. The max salary(non-athlete) there was 260k. (excluding the team owner) EVERY company I do business with treats it's employees fairly, and pay's them a wage that reflects their level of education and production value. You can't just raise wages artificially across the board, that would create a situation much much worse that the one we are presently in.

Arbitrarily raising wages in the U.S. would make unemployment worse than it is now. Our economies are globalized. Think about it, pan. Relatively high wages are partially to blame for the current recession/unemployment. When alternative labour markets have lower wages, American jobs suffer. And now you want to boost wages even higher.

Keep in mind that America still enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The outcome of one's financial status cannot be blamed entirely on "other forces." The average savings rate in America has been pitiful for decades now, and has even been negative. But, hey, keep on that American Dream. It's yours for the taking. You better keep up with those Joneses, even though they're going broke as well.

You know is the country where the CEO-to-worker pay relationship is the smallest? Sweden, Belgium, and so on. Of course, that happens there because they adopt a set of policies that are a lot to the left of anything Obama has ever proposed.

actually it's more complicated than that. there's no "natural" hydraulics that determines wage levels. fact is that in the industrial sectors of the us economy after ww2--so during the height of fordism---wage levels were quite high and sustainably so in part because of strong unions, in part because of collective bargaining, in part because there was a de facto social compromise such that relatively high wages extension of consumer credit and the suburban model all worked together. and underpinning of all this was the assumption--which wasnt even an assumption, more like a way of thinking/life---that the nation-state formed a "natural" boundary for captialist activity in manufacturing (this was never true in at the level of materials procurement...).

this came apart across the 1970s. the idea that there is some deterritorialized hydraulics that "naturally" set wage rates low is a result of neoliberalism implemented and is a duplication of the ideology at the level of thinking.

there are any number of responses that could play out to raising wage levels. everything would depend on the regulatory frame that was set up. the obama people seem WAY too centrist for this kind of social-democratic move, however. silly accusations of being a pinko notwithstanding.

I remember writing that the Treasury Secretary was a form Goldman employee before the first TARP was passed, I did not support it because it was a targeted bailout that benefited a few at the expense of many. That was not a "free market" solution. In fact the effect has been to limit competition in the market place. Big business will often work with government to restrict competition and free trade, it solidifies their market share and ability to maximize profits. Government is often knowingly complicit and occasionally gullible. Obama supported TARP, which was he?

I would have said no. It was an error for Bush to support that, I think he simply wanted to placate the demands for government to do something. I think that was the folly of Hoover also, and the trap Obama could fall into.

I would love to see someone explain it in detail. AIG insurance operations would not have been impacted, just the investment banking arm. The insurance companies would have been spun off, and the other part would have gone bankrupt. Then the people that got paid as a result of the bailout would not have made record profits. Period, end of story.

This is not complicated and I am tired of hearing about some mythical "brink" without an explanation. I don't like being sold b.s.

ace--i really don't know what version of the world you live in, but the tarp business was entirely a bush-period undertaking. one of the many things i did not like about obama's opening moves as president was that he kept on the same bush-period people who crafted that fine bit of legislation, you know the one that in the name of bailing out the american financial system encouraged unprecedented concentration within the financial sector.

and it's baffling to me that you persist in this pattern of displacing reality by attributing the claims that the financial system was on the brink of a catastrophic melt-down---which it was---to the obama administration---which was not fucking elected in august-september 08 which is the point at which the shit *really* started to hit the fan.

and i **really** dont know what planet george w bush could have been understood as a champion of free markets on, ace. nor his administration. remember haliburton, ace? remember all those no-bid contracts for iraq? probably not.

you are continually fast-and-loose with factual material, ace, particularly those pesky historical details like when things happened and who did what. i think it's ironic to see another example of this stuff in a thread you started that attempted to paint obama up as a new herbert hoover.

but whatever.

Until this is addressed, we will continue to lose our standard of living and we will end up a country of haves and have nots and be a relatively 3rd world nation.

STANDARD OF LIVING WORLD STATS, the revealing measurement

I advocate that a person working 40 hours in the US SHOULD be able to have a standard of living that is comfortable and not have to live paycheck to paycheck worrying about his mortgage or car payments.

The above statistic is worsening and people on both sides (as evidenced here) keep arguing that "arbitrary wage increases are bad" .... yeah but for CEO's and executives it is ok.

Total CEO compensation up 7.5% - Dec. 9, 2008

Yet the average worker in the US (THE BOTTOM 80%) has continued to see their capital income decrease immensely in the past 20 years. Meanwhile the top 10, 5 and 1% have all seen theirs increase.

I advocate more distribution of wealth. Colleges are becoming unaffordable, aid is drying up (unless you take loans that you will never be able to pay back because you can't find a job that will pay enough).

WHY THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES ARGUING THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN NEEDS TO CUT BACK WHILE THE TOP 10-5-1 PERCENT CONTINUE TO GAIN MORE AND MORE????? WTF? ARE PEOPLE SO IGNORANT AND BLIND THAT THEY THINK THIS IS OK??????

And for those who talk about how EVIL the Right is yet will argue over wages with me.... take a look at the statistics on this link.... THIS IS FUCKING PATHETIC.... AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND MADE BETTER NOT WORSE.

A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE US AND OTHER RICH NATIONS

Pan,
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the description of the situation. It's just that all these other nations that you are comparing the US to, where the middle class and the poor do better, are also nations that have policies in place that are far to the left of any of the two major US parties, including Obama.

So it strikes people as odd that at the same time that those issues are noted that Obama could be denounced as a far left politician.

There is no magic bullet here. Middle and lower classes in other nations do better than their American counterparts in many areas because of things like more progressive taxation, universal healthcare, more extensive welfare state and other things that would be considered ultra radical over here.

Well, we are at a crossroads and things are going to get far worse if we do not do something. There is a huge crisis with student loan money... an extremely high rate of defaults that will affect us. Why are there defaults? The pay isn't there and college tuitions have skyrocketed.

There is a magic bullet. Instead of continuing to allow companies like AIG, the banks, and so on give extreme bonuses and salaries, you put a cap on them and give that money to shareholders, the taxpayers, etc.

You raise tariffs for a limited time, to start rebuilding the infrastructure and manufacturing sector. You go back to what worked in the 50's - 80's and rework what was good for the working class. You pass laws that companies doing business in the US must meet or surpass the same OSHA, WAGE and LABOR laws that are implemented in this country. If Nike wants to run sweatshops, then they can't sell product here.

People on here call me a righty.... and in some cases I am. The healthcare Obama offered was extremely wrong, I think for this country a sliding scale fee is far better. I am for states rights and believe in less government in PEOPLE's lives but more regulation and control over the distribution of capital.

I do speak out against the Dems because they seem to want more government in people's lives and where they once were for the working man and fought for worker's rights they sold out and are more worried about the power OVER the people.

The GOP is the GOP, they are controlled by the wealthy and don't give 2 shits about the poor or middle class, economically.

WE are all in this together and it helps NO ONE for the low pay and loss of standard of living we see. We need to make corporations more answerable to the stockholders. Used to be there were nice dividends and people could invest and make some money without having to sell, this also allowed those people getting the dividends more capital to invest and save. The money that went to those dividends now goes into executives wallets.

As wages decrease the workers are going to become more reliant on government in their retirement because we don't make enough to save and prepare. This is going to further burden the future work force and employers.

I am a huge believer in national sovereignty and independence. I believe that countries should only import the materials they need and be self reliant or helped to be made so. This would help EVERY country's economy.

For people to argue that raising wages arbitrarily, while CEO pay can continue to skyrocket and the top 10% continues to accrue all the wealth will make the economy worse are people too blind to see that with out American consumerism and the free spending companies end up hurting more financially. Of course, they just layoff workers, outsource and still give executives raises.

I think a company that lays off people should face a board and explain why the layoffs and that the CEO and executives should be forced to take pay cuts and not receive bonuses.

There are ways to correct this, very simple ways. Obama comes out with a plan that basically states the above and that government will start implementing tight regulations on any company that receives ANY government monies whether through contracts, bailouts or loans. Small businesses are to be somewhat exempt.

Stop worrying about where one can smoke, planned parenthood, lightbulbs made in China that are hazardous waste death traps if one breaks in your house.... and worry about fixing the economy.

Make threats and start bills for regulations.... see how fast things change.

We have been raped, bought and sold by our own people for their own profit and it's time we take back what is the workers.

Pan, while I get your grievances, I don't get your solutions. Raising wages and tariffs, in addition to banning many imports will do nothing but spike inflation---and quite dramatically at that. This will be devastating on the lower classes, and will only create further disparity of wealth, as the wealthy will still have access to outside markets (both in consumption and investing), but the poor won't.

Your concern about distribution of wealth isn't an issue of purely wages and protectionism and regulating corporate executives; it's an issue of liberalism and socialism. As mentioned here and in other threads, American politics is decidedly not left wing. The Democratic party sometimes leans left of centre, and there are socialized aspects to your economy, such as unions, minimum wages, labour laws, social security, welfare, etc., but your politics has a huge void when it comes to the left. You have no social democratic voice as other countries do---a voice that strives for a more mixed economy brought by further subsidization of problematic areas, extended social security to the most in need, a reinforcing of the progressive tax system, programs to alleviate strife related to immigration/multiculturalism, etc.

America does not have a social democratic voice that I know of, and it certainly doesn't seem to have one in government.

I see a problem, though. In America, socialism of any form is viewed as an evil. This is why America remains a predominantly conservative nation, tempered with centrism.

first off, like dippin said there's probably not alot of disagreement that the current distribution of wealth is not the indication of some aristotlean shangri-la in which people who are Better make more and people who are Deficient make less because well, dammit, that's just the way in which it ought to be in this the best of all possible worlds. and this wasn't even a caricature (though i place no weight on knowing aristotle as an entry fee).

there are alot of basic problems with capitalist organization itself that can follow from pushing at the distribution of wealth.
i'm not sure that it makes alot of sense here to go too far into it, though i suppose we could if it could take the form of a conversation. but folk come at things differently.

anyway, i think that a global minimum wage would be an interesting move. who would implement such a thing? well there we have one of the more interesting questions posed right away. the reorganization of capitalist production (capital and other commodity flows) has outstripped the control of any particular nation-state. this is obvious but politically we've not caught up with it at all. pan's suggestions above are reasonable if you assume the nation-state is still a viable center of control (it isn't) and appeal (it is, but the meaning of that democratic feedback loop is undercut by the loss of meaningful regulatory/political control).

so at one level, the problem seems to me either people advocate for a fracturing of commodity flows in order to make the system amenable to control by nation-states again--which ain't gonna happen, even though it seems to me the center of what more conservative populism is about (to the extent that it's coherently about a single thing)---or there has to be some other kind of trans-national institutional/regulator infrastructure put into place--which raises all kinds of problems about representation, responsiveness to public pressure, etc.

one way or another, this problem is going to have to be addressed. it seems to me that we're currently stuck in a kind of massive political problem, an indication of what can happen when the categories that order a sense of the world fall out of phase with the world and cant be adapted. which is kinda what collapse of empire looks like. but i digress.

the meaning of a universal minimum wage could be shaped by the institutions that implement it. you'd assume something like this could not happen in a political or policy vacuum, that it would have contexts and consent generated rooted in the control over context, yes? and i would think that a trade-off profit versus the continued stability of the social system that enables profit to be extracted would be a pretty strong argument, wouldn't you?



i don't see tarrifs as a viable alternative to a universal minimum wage. this follows in a more or less circular way from the premise above, the one that claims the nation-state is effectively cooked.

there's more, but i gots to do some other stuff.

This is true, but Obama supported it. Obama made political points by saying he reviewed the plan enhanced by Congress and said it met the criteria he wanted.

Why did he do that? To me it was an endorsement of Bush's policy. To be clear, Congress complained about the 7 page plan submitted by the administration and crafted their own version.

Your point is mis-directed. Obama said he saved us from the "brink", not me. I just ask what "brink", and what saved us? I think it is b.s., and I look for a detailed explanation. An explanation you can not give nor can the Obama administration.

Playing games with false arguments again. Bush was not a champion of free markets. Who said he was? the Republican party has often been overly supportive of big business. That support has often restricted competition and discouraged free market activity. Like I wrote above some are complicit, and some are gullible.

It appears your pattern of responses is based on assumed ideology rather than what is actually written.

ace i'm not going to waste my time on this "brink" nonsense.

on the other, just read your own posts to this thread as if you didn't write them. you'll see the positioning of cowboy george as some inward champion of free marketeer nonsense who was corralled and hogtied by the evil neocons. i don't have to paste them up. the moves i'm referring to are self-evident in your posts.

if you want to debate can we move on to something substantial?
i'm busy and don't really have time for this quibbling.

I am not obsessed with Bush, it seems you and others are. Bush did something I supported and some things I did not support. I have been honest about that, to the contrary I don't see the same level of honesty regarding Obama.

I will do what I do, the way I do it. The way you respond is your choice. Again, your issues with me have nothing to do with the issues put on the table, if you can not separate the two, perhaps you should ask yourself, why? Or, make your life easier and ignore my posts.

ace...

it's almost impossible to get to the individual points you try to make because the way you frame the arguments is frequently so much embedded in a very conservative economic viewpoint that much of what should be argument or claim is presented as though it were true. this thread is a good example. the historical comparison it's based upon is ridiculous except in the most superficial possible sense, which is:

do you think that the obama administration will suffer the same kind of fate that the hoover administration suffered

which is a loose parallel question and **not** what you tried to make of it.
you do this stuff all the time, ace.

if i have a seam in between stuff that i am doing and feel inclined to interact with one of your threads or posts, more often than not this is how things play out. i go after a framework question, you pretend you don't know what i'm talking about. then i'll get momentarily exasperated thinking for fucks sake this is **your** argument, you have to be just playing obtuse. but maybe you arent and you just repeat things on faith. it's hard to say.

you've never made any effort so far as i can tell to interact in anything remotely like an engaqed way with anything anyone who criticizes you from a left viewpoint has written in response to your actions.
you don't even pretend to engage.
but you try to demand from others that they engage with your arguments on their own terms
this even after repeated demonstrations of exactly how and exactly why those terms are at best problematic.

i dont get it ace.

Aassumption Unions are a major part of the answer as postulated above.

Reformation of the unions is a must if we are to survive economically. The protection of workers is a wonderful idea, but in its current format, it stifles the ability to be productive and most seem much more interested in lining their own pockets than taking care of their bosses (also known as their workers. In my opinion Unions have forgotten who they work for.). Costs soar and the ability to be competitive on an economic, global basis is compromised. Unions (in their current form) are a major reason while we don't produce stuff in the USA anymore. The idea of "it's not my job" is rampant in America and unions endorse and enforce this idea. I can recount hundreds of stories that revolve around inefficiency and days, weeks and months of lost productivity because "it's not my job" or worse, "I could solve this but can't because the union will fine me or worse if I do so".

Assumption Regulation of Indudtries is a major part of the answer as postulated.

Over regulation is a slippery slope as well. There may be a way to do it, equitably, but in my industry Oil and Gas, we are seeing a piece of the puzzle right now related to our dependence on foreign sources. Any of these regulations or actions that result in additional process time and costs, additional tax, fees, fines, etc, trickles directly to the end users (Companies don't absorb these hits. It is passed directly thru to you and me. If you can't compete economically with the foreign options for whatever reason, you are doomed to be dependent upon those you can't compete with, for your supply. This example will likely start another discussion altogether and that was not the idea. It should however, provoke some thought on how poorly thought out ideas can lead to "unintended consequences".

Anyone in the WH would and will have their hands full.

you're painting unions with an awfully broad brush, there

Perhaps , but they have earned a good bit of the critisism (sic, my speller is off tonight).

The only ban I mentioned was on companies overseas that did not meet US laws on wage/labor/OSHA ETC. Never said ban ALL imports.

I find it funny that people who cry about sweatshops will argue that if we banned those goods inflation would skyrocket. You can't have it both ways.

What we have been learning is that by allowing goods shipped from sweatshops and pretty much slave labor, is that our own standard of living goes down. Wages here go down, quality of life here goes down.... while the rich continue to get richer.

Thjis has nothing to do with liberalism and socialism or any "ism". It has to do with what is right and what promotes the best life for ALL PEOPLE.

The rich will still be extremely wealthy... but how much is enough.

We have been so programmed to believe it is ok for executives to make MILLIONS for the top 1-5-10% to accumulate more and more wealth while the bottom 80% continue to lose at a severe pace. We have been programmed to believe that it would lead to hyperinflation and blah blah blah.

The truth is, it is only going to get worse if we do nothing and continue to go down the road we are on. Companies and the ultra rich may bitch about it at first but they will eventually fall into line and wealth will be distributed more fairly again.

If not, the only thing that will happen is an eventual breakdown in society and civil wars.

When the wealth is distributed as unequally as it is, society can not continue it will fall apart. Why do you think all these high paid executives, Actors, Athletes and so on buy private islands, live in fortified gated communities and hide from the public? Because they are not stupid, they know society at the rate it is going with wealth distribution will crumble and there will be high crime rates, violence and a breakdown in society.

So, we try a plan similar to mine.... it either works or it fails but it is in no way worse than what we have now.

Pan, I thought the "American Dream" was to be as successful as one can be. Or is it only the dream as long as you never become an evil rich person?

Pan, I don't disagree with your stated problems; I disagree with your plan, and despite what you say, promoting the well-being of all people is a focus of liberalism and various forms of socialism.

Your plan will eliminate many imports (i.e. some products would seek markets other than the U.S.), and raise the prices on many others (raised costs = raised prices). This will spike the CPI and inflation, as would arbitrarily raising wages domestically.

I'm a proponent of a balanced mixed economy. That means I value markets that are regulated and fair. I also value market values being set primarily by market forces: namely, supply and demand. Too much intervention in this is a bad thing, as it discourages/dampens competition, which hurts everyone.

I would like it very much for Third World countries to raise their standard of living. Unfortunately, this would come at the cost of the standard of living in developed nations. Put another way: a higher quality of life to the Third World will come at the cost of the developed world: average prices around the world would go up. America would see an end to cheap goods. And they would have tougher competition for labour pools as well. This would send shockwaves through world markets, and I think you would find an even greater disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S. Though the Third World would have more livable lives, which I guess isn't such a bad thing. Sacrifices would have to be made, I suppose. America (et al) has had to too good for too long.

Like you said, you can't have it both ways.

I'd sooner support a plan in the form of widespread subsidies, grants, and tax breaks.

if you only imported goods that were manufactured with the U.S. standards of labor regulations......well, you wouldn't import anything anymore

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Not if EVERY country is self reliant. Granted that is impossible, but every country can make their own cars, roads, infrastructures. Some may need food, some oil, whatever... that is what you trade for. IT is possible. IT is extremely possible for EVERY country to be primarily self reliant and advanced. The only people who would not want this are people who want to keep other countries down.

You don't send jobs to countries with little to no human rights, sweatshops, dictatorships, etc and expect those conditions to change when you are part of the problem.

You work to educate, you have humanitarian missions to make sure those people are fed and medically cared for but YOU GIVE NOTHING to reward those governments until they change.

Your argument is one that does not take into account the self sovereignty and reliance of a nation. If Nigeria starts building an infrastructure and creates jobs, then Nigerians will stay in Nigeria and the country will begin to prosper. If the US became more self reliant, stopped importing and started making things again, the wages would go up. There would not have to be sacrifices.

You build an infrastructure and you keep it safe and you add on to it.

The only way inflation will happen is if those top 1-5-10% decide not to give up what they have.

The top 1-5-10% have us so brainwashed and so skewed that we are to believe ANYTHING other than the same old same old laissaez faire, let them control everything... will fail and we'll be worse off.

I argue the opposite. I argue that if we promote national sovereignty and self reliance (as much as possible), no longer sending jobs to countries with dictatorships, spotty human rights and so on... the WORLD will be better as a whole not just the US.

---------- Post added at 02:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

Then we have a problem that we should be fixing. IF we are supposed to be this great country (and I believe we are) then we need to make sure we do not do business with countries that have spotty human rights, dictatorships and so on.

Trust me, the US is the world's largest consumer nation, companies will do what they have to, to make sure they sell product here. But, what we have done is wanted cheaper so we shipped jobs to those countries and paid less and spiraled downward. Even our "human rights" advocates don't speak out anymore. It's time we show that what we are.

We are the US, we are the greatest nation to ever grace this planet and we do not need nor will we condone human rights violations, dictatorships and so on.

but those days are over, pan. national sovereignty is a quaint old thing at this point.

i was reading some articles the came out in a journal called Global Social Policy commemorating (if you want to call it that) the 25th anniversary of the bhopal disaster. it outlines the serious problems with regulating the actions of transnational corporations like dow, how close to impossible it is to hold them accountable, the problems of jurisdiction and the usual types of class-fraction based corruption/coziness, the many and varied ways in which these trans- and national regulatory/legal problems converged on screwing over the victims. it's pretty interesting and really quite grim and seems the way of things these days.

if you like i can get the articles and make them available--pm me with an email address----i'm not sure how easy the journal is to find.
i mention this not only because i just happened to read a bunch of stuff earlier this morning, but also because we can't really carry on too far in thinking about what might make sense to do to change the organization of capitalism without having a good working idea of how things operate...the bhopal disaster became emblematic of many things, mostly ugly but some not so (the mobilization of the survivors for example) and its analyzed that way.

Also, Pan, becoming self-reliant goes against the grain of global markets. After all, why would a country start up or heavily expand an industry when it can just purchase the end products from someone else at a fraction of the cost, using the wealth they've generated by doing what they do well?

are you saying that the only way to move forward for humanity now is to condone human rights violations and dictatorships? This is what you want in your new world order?

dk, when you cherry-pick your one and your one, you shouldn't be surprised to end up with a very strange two.

dk...wow. just wow.
i hardly seems necessary to ask whether you read the post you bit that sentence from. you *obviously* didn't and what's better is that you demonstrate the point i was making in the process.

but still. wow.

glad you like it. maybe now you'll see what I see on other threads when you disagree with 'conservative' positions. Because, to be honest, your statements in those circumstances don't make alot of sense either.......so, wow.

How about whenever someone talks about what a majority of self described conservatives believe, instead of just pointing out that there is a minority of self described conservatives who don't believe that you actually explain why you don't believe that?

It was Union Carbide that caused the problems over there (They were bought out by Dow).

But I would agree that India needs an EPA organization that has the power to fix things.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for this thread topic, it is hard to claim Obama is anything yet. He has been criticized by the Right for things he 'might' do (but has no plans to), and the left wants him to do something yet any attempt is blocked by the Senate.

This chart appeared in today's IBD. Commercial and industrial loans issued by commercial banks has been declining for the past 8 months and is down $583 billion from the peak according to IBD.

http://www.investors.com/image/ISShalf_100219.png.cms

As the federal government pumps stimulus into the economy it is being siphoned off, this should be a concern.

In addition the money supply as measured by M2 is shrinking in spite of the Fed's soft money policy:

Investors.com - A Bad Time For Fed To Tighten?

Now the Fed is signeling to the market a shift in posture to tighten the money supply and "easy credit" in spite of virtually no inflation:

Fed Discount-Rate Move Signals End to Emergency Steps (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

No inflation:

U.S. Economy: Consumer Prices Increase Less Than Anticipated - Bloomberg.com

The Obama administration and the Fed are not in sync and one of the major problems affecting job creation, the availability of credit, goes unaddressed. Liberal or conservative, what we need is a concerted effort to turn the economy around on a long term basis. Right now we are seriously at risk of another down-turn given a shrinking monetary supply, strengthening dollar, higher interest rates, higher taxes and deflationary pressures.

I hope the President is having a good time in Vegas campaigning for Reid.:shakehead:

Certain people will benefit from higher interest rates, higher taxes, less money, stronger dollar, lower stock prices, and deflation. It might not be you, but there are winners. I like higher interest rates, a strong dollar, and deflation (lower commodity prices). I have quite a bit of money in a savings account, but I am also locked in at a low rate on my mortgage.

If I had to buy a house, I would want really low rates, and easy credit available with a large monetary supply.

If I was getting ready to retire, it might be different. I wouldn't want the stock market to crash before I was able to get out. I would be worried about inflation or the dollar getting really weak. I would also be worried about taxes.

If I was a high school kid, I want my $7/hour to actually buy something.

If I was a 40-something business owner, I would want lower rates. Easy loans, and low taxes.

If I were a foreigner, I would want a weak dollar to be able to buy more and get more on vacation here.

If I was paying back the national debt, I would want our money to be worth less than it is now with an increasing monetary supply.

You do know that the Fed and the president are "not in sync" pretty much because the fed is set up to be independent of the presidency, right?

Sure, I think that the fed should pump a little more money into the economy, but that is me as liberal interventionist saying this. The fact that you also believe this leads me to think that anything you can use against Obama you will, regardless of whether it fits with your own ideas.

The main economic indicators are starting to show a turn-around happening. Those committed to the view that Obama is Doing Bad Things to the Economy are having to reach into more and more obscure indicators for evidence.

Anecdotally, as one of the excessively-numbered unemployed, I'm seeing a sudden surge in job opportunities just in the last couple weeks. I have an application in for a contract-to-hire gig with McCann Erickson New York right now--so think employed thoughts my direction please! (And no, I won't be moving there if I get it, it's a telecommute position, but I probably will be visiting the city more frequently if I do.)

This is true, but I think most would prefer an end to the recession and certainly for economic improvement rather than deterioration.

My problem tends to be with things like bailouts for banks and then they raise rates/fees, lower credit availability, record record profits, continue record foreclosure rates, etc. I did not support the bailouts, but since the banks got them, should they be obligated to do something in return? We, the taxpayer and consumer, got the raw end of the deal

But we are talking about savings rates of 2%, or nothing after taxes and inflation, then on the other side people are paying up to 20% or more on credit card debt. Then banks can get capital or be bailed-out at virtually no real cost????

You support my view the economy is too complicated to micro-manage and for everyone the government tries to help they hurt someone.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

Why be condescending?

Why shouldn't we expect or demand the Fed and the administration get on the same page?

Looking at the causes of the Great Depression, poorly timed restriction of the money supply hurt. We do not want a repeat. The Fed's words indicate that they understand that, but some of the indicators I see, indicate otherwise.

This issue is bigger than Obama. We all know how I feel about him. I don't know how you want me to respond to him when I think he is wrong, misguided, being political, etc., but what we need is to get him and everyone else focused on the real issues. I think his campaigning at this time is an insult, given what is going on. He talks about global warming but ignores how the financial industry got bailed-out but turns around and hurts every American in this country needing or using credit!

I am very frustrated.

It's not about being condescending. It's about being at least a bit coherent when trying to get on the "let's bash Obama" bandwagon. I mean, if you are posting another "Obama is the devil" type of post, you should at least get the basics right, right?

The fed was set up to be as independent from the presidency as possible. The interest rates are set by the FOMC. The president nominates some, but not all, of the members of the FOMC, and their terms are set to overlap with multiple presidents to make sure that the fed works in an apartisan manner. So 11 out of 12 members of the board were not appointed by Obama, including the Chairman.

And the second point is that the Fed rate really won't impact the economy for at least another 6 months.

Point being, the fact that you don't what you are talking about and yet insist on making it a sort of political point about Obama is very telling about the possibility of having an actual debate with you.

There is forward looking information and there are lagging indicators. There is no doubt there are some positive data points, but there are also some data points that should give cause for concern. In addition there is the condition of a fledgling recovery being reversed by premature action or doing things that can quickly put an end to the recovery. For example if banks hoard capital at the expense of business growth we could see a second round of job loss, consumer demand, foreclosures, etc. , in turn putting more pressure on banks to preserve their capital. Some cycles need to be broken, some cycles in order to be broken require risk taking with a profit motivation as opposed to risk avoidance with a survival motivation. Banks need to be encouraged to transition from survival to a profit motivation. But, we have a President who talks negatively about the financial sector taking risks and talks likes he wants to punish risk taking. I agree that the extreme is not good, but neither extreme is good.

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I am bored with the above. Trust me, Obama doesn't get 2% of the criticism he could get. I don't even point out most of the easy and obvious areas. In my first post today, I only had one line about Obama, most would have seen that line and understood it was just a guy venting at the politics of the day. In fact, when Bush was President this board thrived because of the criticisms and defenses of the Bush administration, there is no defense of the Obama administration. People here, on the right don't need to rub it in, and people on the left don't seem to want to discuss it. Just a few months ago, there were countless comment about the survival of the Republican Party, endless speculation. Why has that changed? why isn't there the same level of interest in the future of the Democratic Party?

Maybe the reason for that is that you get out what you put in? Maybe the discussion ends because there is a pattern of posting nonsense and then responding with the sort of victimization and metadiscussion above?

I mean, what is the alternative? Seriously discussing how Obama messed up because the fed raised interest rates, even though the fed is independent from the president and 11 of 12 members were either appointed by the FED board of governors or Bush?

As far as discussing the future of the democratic party, wasn't there a thread on Scott Brown and other stuff? Healthcare? Gitmo?


You make it sound like everyone here is an ardent Obama supporter. I have significant problems with him: the stimulus was to small, the new banking regulations too little and too weak, the healthcare reform proposal too weak and poorly sold to the public, he should have prosecuted the Bush people for war crimes, and he seems to be more concerned with appearing moderate and above the fray than actually doing anything. But just because I have these problems with him doesn't mean that I will join any Obama bashing bandwagon just to score a few political points. Just because I disagree with a lot of what he does doesn't mean that I'll buy the "Obama lending money to Brazil to enrich Soros" posts, or the "Obama is to blame for the FED" posts, or the "Obama is the next Herbert Hoover" posts.

Economic Scene - Success of Stimulus Bill Is Noteworthy as Another Is Weighed - NYTimes.com

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...phic-popup.jpg

It looks that about the same time that the stimulus started the economy did a complete 180.