Posts Tagged ‘Economy’

Jobless recovery? Go East!

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 by greenboy

…Far East.  I’m really happy for the Chinese, really I am, when I hear that their economy is booming again, although admittedly I’d be happier if our own recovery wasn’t jobless.  Still, Horace Greeley’s advice to a job seeker: “Go West, Young Man,” is relevant once again, assuming you go so far West that you are in the Far East.

There is a growing trend for young job seekers to look for work in China.  It’s only a matter of time before the “Chinese Only” and the “Red Brigade” Minutemen movement arise to protest American illegals sneaking over to the new land of opportunity.

One of these things is not like the other…

Friday, January 30th, 2009 by fubar

We’d like to offer this chart in case Sesame Street is looking for new material.

“Can you find it, kids? I know you can.”

A back channel we can believe in?

Friday, December 5th, 2008 by Swopa

To people worried about the seeming centrist tilt (um, wait, can you tilt to the center?) of many of president-elect Barack Obama’s appointees, this morning’s announcement that progressive economist Jared Bernstein has been named as VP Joe Biden’s top economic adviser should be good news.

Yes, I know that folks like Atrios, Matt Yglesias, and others have raised questions about just how much clout Bernstein will have as the vice president’s economic adviser, rather than one of the familiar posts formulating policy for the top guy, but I think that in some ways, this may be more of a feature than a bug.

It seems noteworthy that the Obama-Biden team created this position for Bernstein, apart from the established organizational chart.  The strategy might be to keep Bernstein free of administrative responsibilities and turf battles, able to survey the whole range of economic policymaking and express his views as he sees fit.

Given that he’ll be able to do so not only directly in group sessions but via Biden as the latter meets individually with Obama, that could be a fairly influential role.  Anyone who’s seen Dick Cheney use the VP office’s lack of official duties (or restraints) to informally shape an entire administration should be pleased that it could work in our favor this time around.

Oh, and one last note.  SusanG wrote at Daily Kos that:

Bernstein posted quite a few diaries here, mostly in the summer of 2006, focusing for the most part on the debilitating effects of conservative economic ideology–or what he called “Your [sic] On Your Own” (YOYO) economics.

That phrase turned up in Obama’s campaign rhetoric in the spring (and his nomination acceptance speech) as a retort to Bushites’ pretensions of creating a so-called ownership society (“What it really means is that you’re on your own”).   And Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity cites comments by National Economic Council nominee Larry Summers to claim that Bernstein “seems to have pulled some of the centrist economists towards his point-of-view, rather than vice versa.”

So if you’re writing off Bernstein as a token liberal whose job will consist of being ignored, you might want to think again.  (I hope.)

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

The New New Deal

Monday, November 10th, 2008 by fubar

Yesterday, Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote a piece for TPM Cafe titled The Mini Depression and the Maximum-Strength Remedy in which he argued that the only way out of the current mini-depression is a bold government infrastructure program:

So the crucial questions become (1) how much will the government have to spend to get the economy back on track? and (2) what sort of spending will have the biggest impact on jobs and incomes?

The answer to the first question is “a lot.” Given the magnitude of the mess and the amount of underutilized capacity in the economy– people who are or will soon be unemployed, those who are underemployed, factories shuttered, offices empty, trucks and containers idled — government may have to spend $600 or $700 billion next year to reverse the downward cycle we’re in.

The answer to the second question is mostly “infrastructure” — repairing roads and bridges, levees and ports; investing in light rail, electrical grids, new sources of energy, more energy conservation.

Government spending that puts people back to work and invests in the future productivity of the nation is exactly what the economy needs right now.

The post triggered a round of thoughtful, meaty commentary from readers (one of the things that makes TPM Cafe a good hangout).

Here were my comments, reposted here so I can check back in four years and see if any of it came true:



Totally agree with everything you say. However, when it comes to the definition of ‘infrastructure’ — I think we should look beyond the classic ‘road-building’ concept.

I would look ahead 30-40 years, think what kind of society we want to live in and work our way backwards to today. What does the ideal look like? Say we’d like to see educated (and nourished) children, healthy people, and reasonably high employment. To get there, we would need good schools, a decent system of food production and delivery, accessible healthcare, and good local jobs. Whatever infrastructure goals we adopt today would have to prioritize based on those principles.

Let’s set the goal at 10,000 news schools, 10,000 new libraries, 10,000 day-care centers, 10,000 new neighborhood health clinics (staffed with people who live nearby), 10,000 parks, 10,000 new family farms who distribute their goods within 100 miles, and 100,000 new small business startups each with less than 100 employees (with tax breaks to encourage buying from supplies manufactured within 100 miles of each other). Too modest? How about 100,000 schools, libraries, etc.

Imagine all the support activity that this will generate across all levels of society. Forcing geographic proximity cuts down on energy use, wear-and-tear of the roadways, and builds local hives of self-supporting commerce. By reducing concentration of location-specific industries we make it so trained personnel can flow between regions and be assured that they can find jobs. We make it so the brand isn’t just ‘Made in the USA’ but ‘Made in Jackson County.’

This will go hand-in-hand with distributed green-power generation plants. If the power doesn’t need to be shunted across a nation-wide grid, you can make do with smaller generation facilities. The more local it stays, the less you lose in transit. Instead of large-scale power generation sources using polluting fuels, we have 10,000 local power plants that use renewable sources, are cost-effective, and can keep going for the rest of the century without ever running out of fuel.

Distribution (of energy, knowledge, manufacturing, commerce, etc) also gets us better fault-tolerance and built-in redundancy. It means that if something disruptive happens in one region, it won’t affect the whole country. Yes, you don’t get the economies of scale, but the goal is to jump-start the ‘distributed economy’ and build a vibrant commercial ecosystem, not to make cheap, low-margin junk that benefit only a few companies.

To be able to pull this off, we’d need training, communication, and good coordination. That’s where high-tech investment comes in. It’ll help spread the knowledge, boost efficiency, and push the benefits down to the local level. Let’s also remember that the Internet infrastructure was designed from the beginning for this sort of decentralization.

As an aside, I believe the so-called ‘Shock Doctrine’ can be harnessed for both good and bad. An emergency can be abused by those who want to acquire power or wealth, or used to ’shock’ society out of complacency and past the petty objections of those who only care about their taxes.

We are clearly in an emergency. Where we go with it is largely up to those in charge and whether they have the vision to look ahead 30-40 years and act now. — fubar.

Heckuva job Hank

Thursday, October 30th, 2008 by fubar

Makes you *wish* it was socialism, but it’s turning into outright kleptocracy:

Banks to Continue Paying Dividends
Bailout Money Is for Lending, Critics Say

U.S. banks getting more than $163 billion from the Treasury Department for new lending are on pace to pay more than half of that sum to their shareholders, with government permission, over the next three years.

The government said it was giving banks more money so they could make more loans. Dollars paid to shareholders don’t serve that purpose, but Treasury officials say that suspending quarterly dividend payments would have deterred banks from participating in the voluntary program.

As with Iraq reconstruction and Katrina, laissez-faire ideology trumps reality. With Bremer and Brown, the principals involved had little experience in handling the emergency they faced or the foresight to marshall government power to benefit the many. Paulson has been presented as this awesome and brilliant financier, whereas what he’s demonstrating is total incompetence in handling this crisis, mixed with a singular ability to consider only the needs of his banking brethren.

In the British version of the bailout plan, the government put up taxpayer funds in return for receiving warrants (future shares in banks), suspended corporate dividends, and a requirement that the bailout money be paid out in loans. In other words, the goal was to help get the banks on their feet AND help the general economy moving again.

In the U.S. Treasury plan, the first version (“Let’s buy all their toxic assets”) was quickly discarded as unfathomably stupid. Plan B was to become part-owners in the banks (“Socialism!”), but apparently with no other safeguards to make sure the money isn’t being used for anything other than doing the public good. So the banks are using it to purchase other banks, hoarding it to pad their balance sheets, giving out executive bonuses, and paying dividends to their own shareholders.

Anything, in other words, but what the bailout is supposed to achieve. The whole thing is turning into a direct siphoning of taxpayer funds into the pockets of bankers and corporate shareholders.

Ideological blindness mixed with incompetence got us Iraq and Katrina. We shouldn’t be surprised if the bailout plan turns out the same way.

Running out of Digits

Monday, October 20th, 2008 by fubar

First we hear about the National Debt Clock running out of digits

Then comes this picture of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke appearing at a Capitol Hill hearing today:

Isn’t running out of LED numbers one of the biblical signs of the apocalypse?

Blogads

Google Ads


Categories

Archives