OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!

On Apr 15, 9:02*am, wrote:
Ken Fortenberry

Damned fine speech....

I'm honestly asking - why?

TIA,
R


Because considering the **** storm WE are in, it was kind of hopeful
in a "steady as she goes" kind of way. Rick, NO one, KNOWS exactly how
to steer the course because NO ONE knows exactly how the effects of
the macroeconomic tools, and monetary tools are calibrated at the
levels being used. When Mariner Eccles, Roosevelt's banker/advisor,
(and fellow UTAH alum ;0))) pulled the levers to save capitalism the
last time capitalist greed almost pushed this country into communism,
the economic systems were much simpler. But even then there was a high
degree of uncertainty.

This situation is even more uncertain now. For example, the old
equations defining the relationships between consumer spending and
employment, domestic manufacturing orders, capital goods orders, etc
no longer hold. And economists across the political spectrum, were
caught short. So anyone saying they know that a consumer driven
recovery from this recession will occur with this or that
characteristic is talking thru their ass, Rs or Ds. And there are lots
of other relationships that are no longer well understood or stable in
the bull**** "financial services," debtor state economy we became
addicted to in the last decade.

Politics wise, history seems to be repeating itself. When Republican
Herbert Hoover went into denial and did nothing effective after the
crash of 1929, the country spiraled into Depression. The capitalist
system itself failed and the nation drifted toward communism as
suffering took its toll on working and middle class Americans. The
Republicans did the same kind of hyena-like harassing **** as they are
doing today. . . ironically it was the Democrats who saved the
capitalist system from itself.

Then, as Fascism and Communism grew in Europe, the Republicans flirted
with Fascism, running around in fascist uniforms, Sam Brown belts,
Bund rallies, and jack boots, playing stiff little American style
Nazis. And some lefties became enamoured with Bolshevism. If history
keeps repeating itself can we expect to see the RNC decked out in
slouch hats and riding pants by the end of Obama's first term? Will
Dennis Kucinisch be cuddling up in China's Central Committee?

Dave
If I am still around my bet will still be on the USA.

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
For example, the old
equations defining the relationships between consumer spending and
employment, domestic manufacturing orders, capital goods orders, etc
no longer hold.


Really? Explain your thinking, if you could, because I doubt that many of
those relationships have changed greatly.



Politics wise, history seems to be repeating itself.

it'll do that. History of all sorts generally repeats itself. Economic
history is a notable example.....


Tom

On Apr 15, 2:27*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message

... For example, the old

equations defining the relationships between consumer spending and
employment, domestic manufacturing orders, capital goods orders, etc

no longer hold.

Really? Explain your thinking, if you could, because I doubt that many of
those relationships have changed greatly.


Simply put, the amount of domestic manufacturing (USA) labor in
imported goods is very small. When a high proportion of manufactured
goods consumed in the country are imported, the old labor input
coefficients in the equations used in the econometric models overstate
the effect of consumption on the size and composition of employment.
Consumer driven recovery from a recession in the USA may be a thing of
the past.

I am fairly sure that the econometric models still take the basic
input-output form they have had for the last half century. Essentially
they are matrices and are manipulated as Markov Chains. But each cell
in the labor sub matrices, requires a labor coefficient which defines
the level of relationship to other key cells. For example, take
employment in a basic industry like autos. Cells for employment in
rubber, steel, electronics, etc.., would all be related to the level
of employment in manufacturing autos, and the number of jobs in autos
would be related to the number of cars produced. (Holding productivity
etc constant for example sake). Cars produced has a relationship to
sales, and sales is related in turn to national incomes and lots else.

Anyway, import the goods and the models all need to be re-calibrated.
Speed up the rates of change in the markets, the origins of goods,
technology etc and the models become very difficult to keep current.
So then the forecasters start treating larger and larger parts of the
models as "black boxes" and . . . well thats enough. Bottomline is
that the detail is lost and the relationships are lost and the models
become less and less valid.

Dave
I am retired. my book is almost 30 yo and out of print, and besides
its only my ...IMHO.

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Simply put, the amount of domestic manufacturing (USA) labor in
imported goods is very small. When a high proportion of manufactured
goods consumed in the country are imported, the old labor input
coefficients in the equations used in the econometric models overstate
the effect of consumption on the size and composition of employment.
Consumer driven recovery from a recession in the USA may be a thing of
the past.

OK, I can accept that. Still, the basic rules of economics apply....what you
say has changed is the position we have left ourselves in, collectively. My
view of a lot of the current mess is that a lot of folks managing assets in
this country forgot or chose to ignore the basic rules. They felt that
historical models were not accurate guideposts and that 'everything is
different today'. They were wrong. While on the economic subject, IMO what
RDean and some others suggest is valid as well. We have developed a broad,
national culture of overconsumption and self-absorbed feelings of
entitlement, without the corresponding need to actually earn and pay for
stuff. A lot of very irresponsible consumers did their part to inflate some
of the recent bubbles. Avoiding the prospect of those folks taking a hit for
their foolishness is avoiding the very real possibility that we go through
the same nonsense all over again. Simply blaming those in business who were
irresponsible leaves half of the equation unsolved......
Tom

..

On Apr 16, 3:35*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
SNIP .

Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.

I think we have an under production problem, a fair trade problem, a
greed problem, and an immoral fat cat problem.

Dave
Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do with the trusts and the monopolies

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.



I am not excluding anyone, nor including specific individuals. Yes, I do get
out a fair bit, and Reading can be considered "rust belt". Still, I see
plenty of decent, hardworking folks WAY outspending their realistic means.
And yes, I realize there are lots of folks who don't. Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:

... Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.

That's like saying after being hit with nuclear bombs, "well, we
have a culture that plays with firecrackers, so in a sense there's
a collective issue here."

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:

On Apr 16, 3:35*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
SNIP .

Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.

Wrong. It is the majority of the consumers - in the case of those to whom this
discussion has turned to center upon, the US population, the vast majority of
them "over-consume" (when "over-consume" is defined, generally, "as living
beyond their means"). I'll put my anecdotal info up against yours any time, but
one need not use such to show that the bulk of the US population
"over-consumes." Look to sales at Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other "fast food"
joints, sales of auto accessories like goofy wheels and tires and loud stereos,
video games, etc., etc. If you believe that it is only "the coddled elite, the
Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated, the hard working and lucky, and
the many who forgot where they came from and what those of us who have done
well" fueling such over-consumption, then, bluntly, you don't have a clue about
the situation. And no, that is not to say that _every single person_ in the US
is an over-consumer, but I suspect what you are doing is the typical mistake of
thinking of "over-consumption" as suburbanites buying too much house, too many
Tommy Pulmyfinger shirts, too many plasma TVs, too many Lexus', etc., when in
fact, a $8.50 an hour person (or one on "welfare") can over-consume just as
easily _within their financial bracket_ as a $250K a year earner. IOW, if a
budget will only support the basics of life sustenance, but the person buys a
small flat-screen, has a cell-phone, etc., then they are "over-consuming" just
as surely as one who makes $50 mil a year and spends $51 mil.

And many people need to get past the idea that everyone is _entitled_ to this or
that, much beyond the right not to be actively harmed by others. This includes
those who feel themselves entitled as well as those who would encourage or
defend that thinking. Unfortunately, in the real world, some people simply
aren't prepared to do the hard work it takes to _earn_ many of life's luxuries,
large or small. And any attempt to extract the means of acquiring them for
those that are not prepared to do that work from those that are so prepared will
end badly. And if for no other reason than, even if the prepared were willing
to subsidize the unprepared, eventually the numbers will not work out.

Now, the above is not to say that good public policy may well and often does
indicate that the general welfare of the populace is best served by providing
certain things - a basic education, basic healthcare, a minimal safety net for
those truly unable to support or care for themselves (part. children and the
elderly), etc. But the recipients of such are not _entitled_ to that receipt,
nor should it be evolved, as it often has been, into more than the minimums
required to achieve the public policy goals inherent in them. For example, the
idea that "food stamps" can be used to buy anything but basic, wholesome
foodstuffs is ridiculous. It fact, it is _against_ good public policy to allow
otherwise - a diet of things like sweets, chips/crisps, heavily-processed foods,
soft drinks, etc. are detrimental to health, which drives up healthcare costs,
which is also provided/subsidized, and if the research is correct, makes it
harder for kids to learn, which then makes subsidized education either
less-effective or more expensive (in the cases where problems are created by
students not seeking to learn).

..
I think we have an under production problem,

Yeah, what we need is more production of goods...that according to you, no one
is actually buying...

a fair trade problem,

Right - if we can't produce consumer goods, let's trade for 'em...

a greed problem,

Um, how is there a "greed problem" if no one is being "greedy?"

and an immoral fat cat problem.

Er, no. We have a people problem - a lot of people who want to blame everyone
and anyone else for the problems they created for themselves, a lot of people
who think they are entitled to things they are not, and a lot of people who have
created and encouraged that belief...

Dave
Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do with the trusts and the monopolies

Right - take them from his enemies and give them to his friends...and 1000s of
years of history is replete with examples of how poorly that works out...

HTH,
R