The Second Annual State of the American Dream released by the Center for the Study of the American Dream shows that Americans, and particularly immigrants, are keeping the American Dream alive, despite economic and job turmoil, three simultaneous US wars, intense institutional distrust, and natural disasters.
With a defiant optimism, 63% of Americans still believe that they will achieve their American Dream. For first and second generation immigrants, that number is even higher at 70%.
This is remarkable, as the survey also reveals that the very institutions charged with safeguarding the Dream--those who govern us, who employ us, who take care of us, and inform us, are wholeheartedly distrusted by substantial majorities.
• 83% distrust the political process in general.
• 79% distrust big business and corporations
• 78% distrust government
• 72% distrust the media.
These institutions appear to be piling onto our chances, rather than protecting them-- in other words--- the American Dream is held dear by individuals; it takes a village to ruin it.
How is this distrust articulated in the survey?
• 54% believe that "their freedoms are being taken away."
• 76 % "do not believe that the world looks up to America like they used to."
• 65% think the country is "in decline."
These are staggering numbers. No partisan interests benefit from these findings. It’s a resounding wake-up call for all political parties and everyone engaged in public life. It's a pox on all houses. To preserve the Dream, these institutions must win back the public’s trust.
Simply put, the American public trusts no one, except themselves. That's not the way it's supposed to be.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers
Despite persistent rumors, Rand Paul was not named in honor of influential conservative thinker, Ayn Rand. His name is Randall.
It's good he was not named for Ayn Rand because her real name was Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum which she changed honoring her Rand typewriter.
Miss Rand, famously a believer in rugged individualism and personal responsibility, was a strong defender of self-interest. She was a staunch opponent of government programs from the New Deal and Social Security to the Great Society and Medicare.
A Library of Congress survey of the most influential books on American readers, "Atlas Shrugged" ranked second only to the Bible. Rand's influence is encyclopedic ranging from Alan Greenspan to Paul "I grew up on Ayn Rand" Ryan (R-Wis), a "Young Gun" who aims to cut or privatize Medicare and Social Security.
The Right should be commended politically for their ability to develop and stick to a unified message. But close inspection of this unified message reveals a disappointing secret identified by a student of the Godfather of Neo-conservatism, --- the University of Chicago's Leo Strauss. The student, Anne Norton ("Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire") identified what she called VIP-DIP meaning Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private. "Do as I say, not as I do." The list of vip-dipers on the Right runs from Harold Bloom to Newt Gingrich, but certainly not Ayn Rand. Right?
Say it ain't so Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum.
A heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer brings to mind those today who are equally certain there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.
However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.
In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.
It's good he was not named for Ayn Rand because her real name was Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum which she changed honoring her Rand typewriter.
Miss Rand, famously a believer in rugged individualism and personal responsibility, was a strong defender of self-interest. She was a staunch opponent of government programs from the New Deal and Social Security to the Great Society and Medicare.
A Library of Congress survey of the most influential books on American readers, "Atlas Shrugged" ranked second only to the Bible. Rand's influence is encyclopedic ranging from Alan Greenspan to Paul "I grew up on Ayn Rand" Ryan (R-Wis), a "Young Gun" who aims to cut or privatize Medicare and Social Security.
The Right should be commended politically for their ability to develop and stick to a unified message. But close inspection of this unified message reveals a disappointing secret identified by a student of the Godfather of Neo-conservatism, --- the University of Chicago's Leo Strauss. The student, Anne Norton ("Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire") identified what she called VIP-DIP meaning Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private. "Do as I say, not as I do." The list of vip-dipers on the Right runs from Harold Bloom to Newt Gingrich, but certainly not Ayn Rand. Right?
Say it ain't so Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum.
A heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer brings to mind those today who are equally certain there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.
However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.
In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.
Washington Post Editorial Board as Movie Critic
The Washington Post editorial board as movie critic (Dirty 'Game', 12/4/2010) is an embarrassment of riches for lovers of irony.
The editorial reminds of the Andre Gide story about a man and his dog who go to the park everyday and engage in games of checkers. The dog has considered and patient checker strategies and thoughtfully moves his pieces around the board. A passerby is positively amazed at the skills of the dog and pauses to watch the game. He marvels at the dog and tells the owner so. The owner, scoffs and indignantly says "don't be too impressed, I've beaten the dog two out of three matches."
The poor owner misses the point and so too does the Post. The dog played checkers for crying out loud whether he won or lost isn't the point. We went to war is the point and one determinative reason was WMDs in Iraq. That was what? Bad intelligence? A lie? Does it matter? The dog played checkers.
In going after Plame and Wilson's stories makes sure the spotlight is on them and not the fact that we went to war in Iraq based, at least in part, on a phony story. That's the only fact in the case of which we are certain. It was touching that the Post was concerned for the accuracy of the historical assessment of this story on behalf of President Bush.
The decision to go to war was not made by Plame and Wilson. It was made by President Bush and history will no doubt show how mistaken his judgment was and how the consequences have been tragic for American soldiers, their families, innocent civilians and the US Treasury.
Lastly, where does the Post get their information for this scolding? From the people who look bad if Plame and Wilson were right? Why should these assertions made by the Post be believed? The only possible source for the information they cite is a source who will look very bad if Plame and Wilson's claims were true. Apparently the Post has underestimated the problem of its own credibility in the matter. Many believe there was media complicity in the false story of WMDs which they all carried with little question --- like the sinking of the Maine (excuse for Spanish American War) or the Lusitania (excuse for WW I), the Gulf of Tonkin Maddox incident which it turns out never happened (excuse for Viet Nam) or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or any other absurd story falsely given the moral suasion to rationalize going to war. All of these stories were largely unchallenged and beaten like a drum by the media.
We don't know who to believe because our institutions, including if not especially the media, have lost credibility and the faith and trust of the American people. Hopefully the historians will get that right. We should be pulling for that checker playing dog anyway.
The editorial reminds of the Andre Gide story about a man and his dog who go to the park everyday and engage in games of checkers. The dog has considered and patient checker strategies and thoughtfully moves his pieces around the board. A passerby is positively amazed at the skills of the dog and pauses to watch the game. He marvels at the dog and tells the owner so. The owner, scoffs and indignantly says "don't be too impressed, I've beaten the dog two out of three matches."
The poor owner misses the point and so too does the Post. The dog played checkers for crying out loud whether he won or lost isn't the point. We went to war is the point and one determinative reason was WMDs in Iraq. That was what? Bad intelligence? A lie? Does it matter? The dog played checkers.
In going after Plame and Wilson's stories makes sure the spotlight is on them and not the fact that we went to war in Iraq based, at least in part, on a phony story. That's the only fact in the case of which we are certain. It was touching that the Post was concerned for the accuracy of the historical assessment of this story on behalf of President Bush.
The decision to go to war was not made by Plame and Wilson. It was made by President Bush and history will no doubt show how mistaken his judgment was and how the consequences have been tragic for American soldiers, their families, innocent civilians and the US Treasury.
Lastly, where does the Post get their information for this scolding? From the people who look bad if Plame and Wilson were right? Why should these assertions made by the Post be believed? The only possible source for the information they cite is a source who will look very bad if Plame and Wilson's claims were true. Apparently the Post has underestimated the problem of its own credibility in the matter. Many believe there was media complicity in the false story of WMDs which they all carried with little question --- like the sinking of the Maine (excuse for Spanish American War) or the Lusitania (excuse for WW I), the Gulf of Tonkin Maddox incident which it turns out never happened (excuse for Viet Nam) or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or any other absurd story falsely given the moral suasion to rationalize going to war. All of these stories were largely unchallenged and beaten like a drum by the media.
We don't know who to believe because our institutions, including if not especially the media, have lost credibility and the faith and trust of the American people. Hopefully the historians will get that right. We should be pulling for that checker playing dog anyway.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Election Day wrap-up and the State of the American Dream
Interest in the American Dream heightened recently because the mid-term election was an opportunity for the American people to express their frustrations about this difficult economy. And express they did. But what did this election really say about the American Dream? As it turns out, not much.
It is important to make the distinction between THE American Dream and individuals' American Dreams. While it is painfully true that many individual American Dreams are currently struggling because of the economy, THE American Dream itself is not in trouble.
When we recently surveyed Americans' definitions of the American Dream, it was primarily not about homeownership, or wealth accumulation or a good job. It was overwhelmingly and unmistakably about two things: freedom and opportunity. So while it is important to understand that some individual dreams are in trouble, it is also important to remember that the freedom and opportunity to pursue them are not.
Our survey revealed that Americans have not lost faith in the American Dream BUT they have lost faith in nearly all of the very institutions traditionally seen as the guardians of the Dream...all of them...be they in politics, government, business, religion, sports, and especially the mainstream media reporting all the bad news.
But, despite everything, we still believe in ourselves. In fact, 67% of us are still confident that we can reach the Dream in our lifetime. This is essential to the American Dream for the very reason that it does not depend upon or wait for circumstances to change or someone else to create the future.
Inextricably linked to the ideas of freedom and opportunity is something else --- unspoken. Perhaps we take it for granted in our political, intellectual and capitalist marketplace today. Perhaps we forgot.
Freedom and opportunity require having no fear.
The American Dream is fearless -- unafraid of failure or suppression or doubt or criticism or ridicule or of claims of impossibility.
Our institutions need to be committed to upholding this fearlessness. This is where our public doubt lives... and it should, especially in today's politically partisan, fear-mongering world.
The American Dream relies on confident new investment-- not nostalgia, uncertainty, fear, and cutbacks at the time we need investment the most.
George Bernard Shaw, who, as it turns out had little affection for the US, unintentionally gave a special meaning to the American Dream.
He said that "the reasonable man sees the world as it is and adapts himself to it. The unreasonable man sees the world and expects it to adapt to him. Thus, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
The American Dream is defiantly the "unreasonable man."
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Perspective on War Costs ---Is It Worth It?
Originally, the "War On Terror" was projected to cost no more than $50 billion and after being greeted as "liberators", the "cakewalk" would take no more than six months -- maybe a year.
Nine years later it has cost more than $1.1 trillion and growing.
In the face of severe economic difficulties at home. accumulation of mountains of debt, and questions about Defense Department spending excesses raised by non-partisan Defense Secretary Gates, financial perspective on the war is called for.
Apart from the painful costs in life and limb suffered by our military forces and their families, basic costs must be held to an emotionally unencumbered cost/benefit analysis. For starters:
1. The cost to date for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is over $1.1 trillion.
* This is the equivalent of spending $1 million a day --- for 3,200 years.
* 3200 years ago Christ was not yet born and Moses was a newborn
floating down the Nile in a basket.
2. Estimates are that there are 150 full time insurgent Taliban forces and we've spent $337.8 billion to date in Afghanistan.
* That's $2.2 billion per full time Taliban insurgent. If we can't kill them with 150,000 troops maybe we should try to buy them off by giving each Taliban insurgent the same net worth as Baron Hilton.
3. Americans have spent an average of $8,000 per taxpayer to support the wars.
* The average Bush "middle class tax cut" for 4 out of 5 families was about $350.
4. President Bush's much maligned TARP program is projected to cost about $110 billion. less than originally estimated, or about $800 per taxpayer (and some of that has already been paid back and more will be paid back).
* The government's attempt to bolster or "bail out" the economy (however you wish to catagorize it) is 10% of the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. America is not at war.
Only the military and their families are at war.
The troops are exhausted from a war that has already extended beyond WW II by three years. While philosophic, ideological and political discussions are indulged in at home, the troops are out of sight and sadly, out of the public mind. The troops are overextended and overlooked beyond bumper sticker sloganisms and their experience contrarily makes them more uncertain and less confident concerning their mission. In an extraordinarily unpatriotic fashion, we ignore the problems they face and the burdens they carry as if they were problem free, ever dependable robots.
Their dependability is not at issue here.
It is our dependability as thoughtful and respectful citizens that is at issue.
* During the past year, active duty suicides and "high risk behavior" killed more soldiers than combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
*While there were a record number of 239 suicides among active duty and reservist soldiers, (74 of these were from drug overdoses). This number has tripled since 2001.
* There were also an additional known 1,712 failed suicide attempts by active duty soldiers.
*The rate of suicides by post conflict veterans aged 20-24 is twice the rate of their active duty brethren.
* A recently issued US Army report indicated that one-third of the troops are taking at least one prescription drug and 14% are taking powerful pain killers. The report further indicates that "the force is becoming increasingly dependent on drugs, anti-depressants,amphetamines and narcotics."
We know the costs. Can we afford it? Is it worth it?
Nine years later it has cost more than $1.1 trillion and growing.
In the face of severe economic difficulties at home. accumulation of mountains of debt, and questions about Defense Department spending excesses raised by non-partisan Defense Secretary Gates, financial perspective on the war is called for.
Apart from the painful costs in life and limb suffered by our military forces and their families, basic costs must be held to an emotionally unencumbered cost/benefit analysis. For starters:
1. The cost to date for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is over $1.1 trillion.
* This is the equivalent of spending $1 million a day --- for 3,200 years.
* 3200 years ago Christ was not yet born and Moses was a newborn
floating down the Nile in a basket.
2. Estimates are that there are 150 full time insurgent Taliban forces and we've spent $337.8 billion to date in Afghanistan.
* That's $2.2 billion per full time Taliban insurgent. If we can't kill them with 150,000 troops maybe we should try to buy them off by giving each Taliban insurgent the same net worth as Baron Hilton.
3. Americans have spent an average of $8,000 per taxpayer to support the wars.
* The average Bush "middle class tax cut" for 4 out of 5 families was about $350.
4. President Bush's much maligned TARP program is projected to cost about $110 billion. less than originally estimated, or about $800 per taxpayer (and some of that has already been paid back and more will be paid back).
* The government's attempt to bolster or "bail out" the economy (however you wish to catagorize it) is 10% of the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. America is not at war.
Only the military and their families are at war.
The troops are exhausted from a war that has already extended beyond WW II by three years. While philosophic, ideological and political discussions are indulged in at home, the troops are out of sight and sadly, out of the public mind. The troops are overextended and overlooked beyond bumper sticker sloganisms and their experience contrarily makes them more uncertain and less confident concerning their mission. In an extraordinarily unpatriotic fashion, we ignore the problems they face and the burdens they carry as if they were problem free, ever dependable robots.
Their dependability is not at issue here.
It is our dependability as thoughtful and respectful citizens that is at issue.
* During the past year, active duty suicides and "high risk behavior" killed more soldiers than combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
*While there were a record number of 239 suicides among active duty and reservist soldiers, (74 of these were from drug overdoses). This number has tripled since 2001.
* There were also an additional known 1,712 failed suicide attempts by active duty soldiers.
*The rate of suicides by post conflict veterans aged 20-24 is twice the rate of their active duty brethren.
* A recently issued US Army report indicated that one-third of the troops are taking at least one prescription drug and 14% are taking powerful pain killers. The report further indicates that "the force is becoming increasingly dependent on drugs, anti-depressants,amphetamines and narcotics."
We know the costs. Can we afford it? Is it worth it?
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Socialism in America? You Ain't Just Whistlin Dixie
Have you heard rumblings of a counter tea party movement afoot in the land which calls the tea party "the bite the hand that feeds you caucus?" A rogue e-mail making the rounds called the movement: "free loading, progress-blocking, benefit grabbing,resource sucking, violent and hypocritical."
Southern politicians in particular complain about BIG GOVERNMENT and TAXES because it resonates easily and conforms to the post civil war self-perception of that region as victims of northern conspiracies.
However, as it turns out, in spite of their persistent anti-government rhetoric, Southern politicians are complety comfortable accepting the last line of Tennessee Williams' play, "A Streetcar Named Desire": "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." Down South it has become habitual to do just that. Southerners get back a whole lot more than they give in taxes.
America's wealth is indeed being redistributed -- from what the independent Tax Foundation calls the "giving states" of New York, New Jersey, New England, most of the northeast and California --- to the receiving states" consisting of all of the south and ironically, Alaska.
For example, those poor socialists in New Jersey only get back 56 cents on the tax dollar. But for every tax dollar Mississippi sends to Washington they get back $2.02, more than doubling their money! That's a Madoff return paid by the "giving states". Same for Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, Rand Paul's Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Then of course, there is Alaska.
The South gets the re-distribution of federal tax money because it seems least capable of helping itself out, It has:
* The lowest per cap % of high school diplomas.
* The fewest college degrees per capita.
* The highest rates of adult illiteracy and often their illiteracy rate exceeds their unemployment rate. E.G. in Mississippi, adult illiteracy is 16% and unemployment is 11.5%. Illiteracy in Alabama is 15% and unemployment is 11%. These means that Southern states have may adults working who cannot read beyond the 5th grade level. THUS ---
* The highest poverty rates and the lowest average household income in the nation.
* The highest percentages of citizens without health insurance yet most likely to call health care reform "socialism."
* The most unhealthy region in the nation, leading in obesity, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, cancer deaths per 100,000 while managing to excerise the least.
* The most violent region in the country being a majority of the top 18 states states in deaths by firearms. (Louisiana - 19.5 firearm deaths per 100,000. Mississippi, 17.3 deaths per 100,000 etc. as oppposed to New York with 5.1 per 100,000 or Massachusetts with 3.1 per 100,000 etc.)
* With 35% of the population, the South has created only 17% of the nation's patents over the last 25 years. California alone with 10% of the national population, has nearly 20% of the patents over the last 25 years.
* Louisiana is a special welfare case having a long established dysfunctional dependence on the oil industry in its economy, its politics, in its winking willingness to debase the environment all combining to create an oil based modern plantation mentality. They attack the federal government on the national news everyday for being slow or for failing to act to "restore our way of life" after the BP disaster as if American taxpayers are morally obligated to maintain the oil plantation to which Louisianans' sold out long ago.
Now some Southern public office holders and seekers from Tennessee to Texas are directly or indirectly talking about sucession and this has many others wondering if that is a threat or a promise.
Redistribution of wealth? The South appears to be on the dole and things there have a way of never managing to get any better. Perhaps our Southern brethren should stand up for their outspoken beliefs and send the money back. Or perhaps they should consider jumping on the "Street Car Named Get Serious".
Southern politicians in particular complain about BIG GOVERNMENT and TAXES because it resonates easily and conforms to the post civil war self-perception of that region as victims of northern conspiracies.
However, as it turns out, in spite of their persistent anti-government rhetoric, Southern politicians are complety comfortable accepting the last line of Tennessee Williams' play, "A Streetcar Named Desire": "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." Down South it has become habitual to do just that. Southerners get back a whole lot more than they give in taxes.
America's wealth is indeed being redistributed -- from what the independent Tax Foundation calls the "giving states" of New York, New Jersey, New England, most of the northeast and California --- to the receiving states" consisting of all of the south and ironically, Alaska.
For example, those poor socialists in New Jersey only get back 56 cents on the tax dollar. But for every tax dollar Mississippi sends to Washington they get back $2.02, more than doubling their money! That's a Madoff return paid by the "giving states". Same for Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, Rand Paul's Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Then of course, there is Alaska.
The South gets the re-distribution of federal tax money because it seems least capable of helping itself out, It has:
* The lowest per cap % of high school diplomas.
* The fewest college degrees per capita.
* The highest rates of adult illiteracy and often their illiteracy rate exceeds their unemployment rate. E.G. in Mississippi, adult illiteracy is 16% and unemployment is 11.5%. Illiteracy in Alabama is 15% and unemployment is 11%. These means that Southern states have may adults working who cannot read beyond the 5th grade level. THUS ---
* The highest poverty rates and the lowest average household income in the nation.
* The highest percentages of citizens without health insurance yet most likely to call health care reform "socialism."
* The most unhealthy region in the nation, leading in obesity, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, cancer deaths per 100,000 while managing to excerise the least.
* The most violent region in the country being a majority of the top 18 states states in deaths by firearms. (Louisiana - 19.5 firearm deaths per 100,000. Mississippi, 17.3 deaths per 100,000 etc. as oppposed to New York with 5.1 per 100,000 or Massachusetts with 3.1 per 100,000 etc.)
* With 35% of the population, the South has created only 17% of the nation's patents over the last 25 years. California alone with 10% of the national population, has nearly 20% of the patents over the last 25 years.
* Louisiana is a special welfare case having a long established dysfunctional dependence on the oil industry in its economy, its politics, in its winking willingness to debase the environment all combining to create an oil based modern plantation mentality. They attack the federal government on the national news everyday for being slow or for failing to act to "restore our way of life" after the BP disaster as if American taxpayers are morally obligated to maintain the oil plantation to which Louisianans' sold out long ago.
Now some Southern public office holders and seekers from Tennessee to Texas are directly or indirectly talking about sucession and this has many others wondering if that is a threat or a promise.
Redistribution of wealth? The South appears to be on the dole and things there have a way of never managing to get any better. Perhaps our Southern brethren should stand up for their outspoken beliefs and send the money back. Or perhaps they should consider jumping on the "Street Car Named Get Serious".
Monday, July 19, 2010
Is American Capitalism Dead?
In the life cycle of an individual investor, age impacts investment decisions big time. The older the investor, the greater the caution and safety and the less growth is sought. That makes sense for aging retirees or soon-to-be retirees. When it comes to a capitalist economy that invests like an old retiree, that's a different story--an end-of-the-road story.
We are depending on the government to take care of just about everything even as we blame it for just about anything.
Capitalism--no economy for old men.
As the economy flounders, non-financial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, which is a 25 percent greater cash reserve than existed at the start of the recession. Why don't they invest it in new job creation now?
Credit-worthy small businesses can't get to financial company capital despite their bonuses paying stock resurrection. Why won't they lend?
It will take years to receover the more than eight million jobs lost during the contraction. Remember, it took the entire decade of the '80s to create 1.3 million jobs for small businesses while Fortune 500 companies lost about two million jobs.
Only innovation generates new jobs. Not financial engineering. Historically, the times of the greatest financial stress were also the times of the greatest innovation in American history.
Nearly one third of American workers are in jobs that weren't listed in the Census Bureau's occupation codes in the 1960s.
So, eight million jobs just to get even? It can be done. During the Clinton presidency there were an average of 240,000 new jobs per month powered by the Internet, the Information Age and wireless communication. There were more than 22 million new jobs created in those eight years.
In the Bush years, three million new jobs were created, averaging 31,300 new jobs per month.
Where will the new jobs come from?
What Information Age equivalent is afoot? Name an industry or industries that can create 240,000 new jobs a month. Or 133,000 new net jobs a month, which is what it will take to recover in five years.
There isn't such an industry, and as long as the best brains in the nation are working on non-productive financial and defense innovation, there won't be one for a long, long time.
We have been engaged in the search for "certainly" in financial markets--not for new ideas, products and employment in the actual marketplace. If it were supposed to be certain, it would be called "entitlement" and not "investment."
Certainty was what derivatives and CDOs supposedly gave--the certainly of algorithms. Instead, we got the proverbial "madness of crowds" all following the same algorithmic strategies at once.
If taxes and government regulation are the determining factors n terms of successful business, then why bother with capitalism?
Evidently, capital is waiting for daddy to tell them when they will be immune from risk and have guaranteed profits. In baseball, umpires have different strike zones and all a pitcher can ask is consistency. Obama isn't doing anything he didn't promise he would do before he was elected. Elections have consequences. There are no surprises. There is empirical consistency. Play some ball. Swing away and quite hoping for a walk.
We are depending on the government to take care of just about everything even as we blame it for just about anything.
Capitalism--no economy for old men.
As the economy flounders, non-financial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, which is a 25 percent greater cash reserve than existed at the start of the recession. Why don't they invest it in new job creation now?
Credit-worthy small businesses can't get to financial company capital despite their bonuses paying stock resurrection. Why won't they lend?
It will take years to receover the more than eight million jobs lost during the contraction. Remember, it took the entire decade of the '80s to create 1.3 million jobs for small businesses while Fortune 500 companies lost about two million jobs.
Only innovation generates new jobs. Not financial engineering. Historically, the times of the greatest financial stress were also the times of the greatest innovation in American history.
Nearly one third of American workers are in jobs that weren't listed in the Census Bureau's occupation codes in the 1960s.
So, eight million jobs just to get even? It can be done. During the Clinton presidency there were an average of 240,000 new jobs per month powered by the Internet, the Information Age and wireless communication. There were more than 22 million new jobs created in those eight years.
In the Bush years, three million new jobs were created, averaging 31,300 new jobs per month.
Where will the new jobs come from?
What Information Age equivalent is afoot? Name an industry or industries that can create 240,000 new jobs a month. Or 133,000 new net jobs a month, which is what it will take to recover in five years.
There isn't such an industry, and as long as the best brains in the nation are working on non-productive financial and defense innovation, there won't be one for a long, long time.
We have been engaged in the search for "certainly" in financial markets--not for new ideas, products and employment in the actual marketplace. If it were supposed to be certain, it would be called "entitlement" and not "investment."
Certainty was what derivatives and CDOs supposedly gave--the certainly of algorithms. Instead, we got the proverbial "madness of crowds" all following the same algorithmic strategies at once.
If taxes and government regulation are the determining factors n terms of successful business, then why bother with capitalism?
Evidently, capital is waiting for daddy to tell them when they will be immune from risk and have guaranteed profits. In baseball, umpires have different strike zones and all a pitcher can ask is consistency. Obama isn't doing anything he didn't promise he would do before he was elected. Elections have consequences. There are no surprises. There is empirical consistency. Play some ball. Swing away and quite hoping for a walk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
