Friday, February 3, 2012

Our turn to sweat, cry and bleed

A third of million new jobs were created in January according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s household survey. This exceeds the quarter million job gain shown by the employer survey. Historically these two surveys confirm one another except when unusual growth is seen. The household survey had been diverging from the employer survey by larger and larger numbers over the past year.

This divergence probably indicates exceptional growth in small business activity and among new entrepreneurs not adequately represented in the employer survey. This could be tied to the sharp growth in manufacturing jobs with 50,000 new workers added last month as reported by employers. Manufacturing is what is known as a “cluster economy”, the “finished product job” tends to support numerous other jobs that are somewhat off the grid. These can be everything from the small machine shop that does tool and die work, or a specialized factory with a few employees that makes small parts that don’t justify a major factory operation, and all manner of service and support jobs.

It can’t be stressed enough how important this kind of up tick in jobs in mid-winter really is. An economy has momentum, like a ship rising to meet the crashing waves or the wreck being driven to the bottom by it. Currently the ship of the economy is rising despite all efforts from the Republicans to drill holes in the hull. Red State Republicans eliminated 14,000 teachers, firefighters, police and highway maintenance workers just last month, crippling the recovery of their own states, and putting a drag on the national economy.

That’s the good news; the bad news is that real wages were down 2% last year as major corporations deliberately assaulted the wages of employees to tighten their grip on the economy and society in general. The six million long term unemployed have no chance of ever being employed by any major corporation as the universal corporate policy is to never hire them. The excuse is that their skills “are stale”, but really it is to make them an example for all who might resist.

A large scale recovery would throw this policy out the window of course. Obama made a point of chiding Republicans not to get in the way of the recovery saying, “don’t muck it up”.  (according to the right Obama can read the tele-prompter, but he seems to confuse his m’s and f’s)

That’s not to say we don’t have huge problems with insane trade policies, a lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws, and a long laundry list of laws and policies that have been gutted, ignored or decriminalized over the past 30 plus years. It speaks to the potential of American that it has taken the 0.1 percent this long to steal and corrupt enough of the economy to reverse the New Deal, and still they haven’t quite done it.

We can have it back again. All those thing our liberal grandparents gave sweat, tears and blood to accomplish can be ours again. All the things our liberal ancestors fought died for in order to wrest this continent from the British East India Company can be ours again. It’s our turn to sweat, cry and bleed to have these things again, or they will be gone forever.

9 comments:

John said...

What is to be made of the WaPo article that reveals the Obama administration's proposal to "wind down government-backed housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and attract more private funding to mortgage markets ... "

(As I recall "private funding to mortgage markets" has been virtually nil, inexplicably, as the companies expected to do said lending have been given many $billions by the US taxpayer [and mortgage seeker] precisely to do so? If my tax money is to provide mortgage funding I'd prefer it NOT be through give-aways to the self-proclaimed pillars of capitalism .)

If the answer here is to invoke alleged Fanny/Freddie "illegal activities" I ask: "Why do equivalent illegal activities of private companies, even IF eventually prosecuted, never involve closing those companies?)

And how are Obama skeptics supposed to be placated by the additional news that "Republicans in Congress also have advocated shutting down the taxpayer-backed mortgage giants but generally on a faster timetable than the administration has proposed."

(What electoral advantage does he seek by appearing STILL to be promulgating the radical reich's anti-middle class agenda?)

http://tinyurl.com/84qgkfj

John Puma

prairie2 said...

Freddie and Fannie should be closed and replaced with an actual government loan agency, but that probably isn't the political thing to say. Most Democrats don't grasp the true extent of the right wing agenda. Obama has to go with a message that will sell over the next few months and not come across as more radical than the voters are willing to embrace. (not that I claim him to be very liberal, but he seems to be learning)

John said...

Are you suggesting that Obama WILL push for "an actual government loan agency" if he is re-elected?

If he's not re-elected, is re-elected without congressional majorities or has no intention of seeking a governmental loan agency, then, my original question remains: how can we expect the private funding of mortgage markets to work out?

Please expand on the "the true extent of the right wing agenda."

John Puma

prairie2 said...

John, I'm not here to chew over every detail of government policy in the light of any hypothetical future you care to come up with. My answer to the mortgage problem stands. How Obama deals with it will depend on political realities, and I'm not going to rehash it over and over.

John said...

OK, how would you advise president whoever to rectify "the mortgage problem"?

John Puma

prairie2 said...

Same as the first time. Congress needs to be changed or it doesn't matter.

John said...

I am asking for your ECONOMIC prescription for dealing with the mortgage problem.

I am NOT fishing for a political argument, this time. That is why I used "president whoever."

John Puma

prairie2 said...

to boil it all down to the simplest terms: stop giving rich people a cut off the top from all basic economic activity. Credit unions for all consumer lending. Government banks to backstop mortgage lending.

The problem is that the rich don't want a system where they can't tax the peasants.

John said...

Thanks.

I just came across a description of about 20 ways that serfs could be found indebted to their lords in the period of overt feudalism.

It seems that the motivations of the "self-avowed" superiors among us have not changed much in the ensuing millennium.

John Puma