America Unmade

NewsMax ^ | May 22, 2003 | Diane Alden

[Phaedrus]

ping ...

[Billy_bob_bob]

Litigation is now the largest industry in this country? Really? Do you have a source for that? Because that is one damning statement!

[Nick Danger]

In fact, wages for people working in American manufacturing or retail don't buy nearly what they used to in terms of real dollars compared to what the dollar would buy in 1973 or 1982.

That looked like a checkable fact, so I went off to check it. The result was kind of interesting.

She's half right: the statement is true for a comparison with 1973. The average weekly earnings in Manufacturing today do not have as much purchasing power as the average weekly earnings in 1973.

The statement is not true for 1982... the purchasing power is about the same. I did a few more points in between to make certain that the following observation is correct: all of the loss in purchasing power since 1973 took place between 1973 and 1982. I didn't do the math, but it's a good bet that the entire loss of purchasing power took place during the period of double-digit inflation in the Carter Administration.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Bumps for an eye opening read !

[MeekOneGOP]

but it's a good bet that the entire loss of purchasing power took place during the period of double-digit inflation in the Carter Administration.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Phaedrus]

Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley, on Deflation, excerpted:

As I see it, there are three powerful forces at work — the first being the business cycle. Recessions, by definition, are deflationary events. So, too, are subpar recoveries ... The [stock market] bubble — and the post-bubble shakeout that has ensued — is the second key macro underpinning to the case for deflation ...Globalization is the third leg of the stool. Not only has trade liberalization expanded aggregate supply in tradable goods markets, but there has been a comparable development in the once-non-tradable services sector. The globalization of services — the newest and potentially the most powerful piece in this equation — reflects three developments: global deregulation, which transforms administered pricing into market-determined prices; surging cross-border M&A activity that has led to the creation of huge multinational service providers; and the Internet, which has facilitated the growth of IT-enabled service exports (i.e., software programming, consulting, design, engineering, etc.) from places like India. In the long run, the supply-led impetus of globalization generates incremental income that supports increased aggregate demand. But today’s world is far from that long run. Instead, it is coping with the impacts of the first-round effects of globalization on the supply side, which further exacerbate the global imbalance between supply and demand.

[Phaedrus]

Trade-Weighted US Dollar. A stronger Dollar is deflationary (1995-2002) because foreign goods are cheaper and a weaker Dollar (2002-now) is inflationary because foreign goods are more expensive. This is why, I believe, the Administration is not opposing current Dollar weakness.

[kezekiel]

Seein that we're the largest exporter in the world, that's pretty darn good for a service economy.

We're currently the world's best at "finding a need and filling it," which is the classic capitalist modus operandi. What we need to examine are the demotivators and barriers for people 1) being able to see the value in solving other people's problems and 2) being able to build a business to offer the solutions.

Problem 1 is primarily a matter of mentality; the capitalist spirit is what gives a person the "antennae" to detect opportunity. Problem 2 is primarily a resources problem: how effectively can one gather the capital, talent, and technology to design, create, market, and sell the solution. Despite the left's worshipping of education, all that is really needed to solve Problem 1 is to reduce the barriers affecting Problem 2. In other words, keep taxes, interest rates, and regulation low, and people will recognize more opportunities to gain profit.

[betty boop]

...nearly all Federal legislation from the New Deal to the Great Society and beyond had been unconstitutional. Instead of fighting liberal programs piecemeal, conservatives could undermine the whole lot of them by reviving the true (and, really, obvious) meaning of the Constitution. Liberalism depended on a long series of usurpations of power.

"What the federal government isn't authorized to do, it is fobidden to do." On that basis, Phaedrus, probably 90% of what the federal government is doing right now would be things on the "forbidden list." I agree with Sobran that both major political parties are parties of "big government." We do not see the Republicans exactly rolling back big government, now do we?

But then, there is no apparent social consensus for getting the federal government back into constitutional-trim. Absent that, can we really expect that politicians will lead an effort to do that?

Thanks for the link to Sobran's great essay.

[Phaedrus]

But then, there is no apparent social consensus for getting the federal government back into constitutional-trim. Absent that, can we really expect that politicians will lead an effort to do that?

Yes, you're right, and No, we can't. We will, I fear, have to suffer the economic equivalent of 9/11. Too many takers, living for today, voting their pocketbook; i.e. voting other people's money into their pocketbook. It's been too easy for too many for too long but what goes around comes around, as they say. I'm just sorry the kids are going to have to pay for our lack of discipline. But despite what the media dishes up, there are a lot of good kids out there. Strong. And smart. They will need to be.

Sorry, Folks, for all the seeming pessimism. I think we're going to learn once again what it means to help one another, one-on-one, the hard way. All those things that we value so much are going to become less valuable bye-the-bye, and that is a needful change.

And that is the end of this sermon. FreepMail me if you want a private one ... ;-}

[maui_hawaii]

I told the CNBC reporter that I have been informed by some Fortune 500 firms that they are not considering domestic suppliers for contract manufacturing work. I have been told that my Wisconsin-based company would not be considered for work unless we have a “presence” in Mexico, China or other countries.

Lets find this man, and find the names of those companies. We can take revenge on them. I will for sure.

[The Westerner]

It's not about this President or even the last, RLK. It's about Regulation, Taxation and government proscribed compliance with Union demands. What can a business do, really, but flee this country? Maytag said it clearly, it can't compete with countries who have few regulations.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Written in the 1950's, Ayn Rand predicted the future we are in based upon the principles of laissez-faire Capitalism vs. creeping statism. She saw the totalitarian advances in America when she emigrated from Communist Russia in the 1920's.

[SwankyC]

Bump. good read.

[Gritty]

thousands of regulations, 75,000 pages in the Federal Register, diversity demands, countless lawsuits, and a 45,000-page tax code that requires a phalanx of lawyers and tax accountants to wade through. The regulation gorilla alone adds $700 billion to costs for individuals and companies in the U.S.

That's a HUGE albatross for business to carry!

[RLK]

I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged probably before you were born. I liked Fountainhead better than Atlas Shrugged. However, there are other factors at work in the present economy other than those tangent to Ayn Rand.

[FrogMom]

Third world, here we come!

You ragged on me for years when I refused to buy Chinese...

[Phaedrus]

Outsourcing hits US techies hard

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[Cacique]

ping