This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Obama Thinks that High Unemployment Is Okay: Unwise for Government to Spur Hiring

George Washington's picture




 

Obama Does Not Care About Reducing Unemployment

As I’ve repeatedly documented, Obama is not concerned with reducing unemployment. Indeed, despite his faux populism, Obama’s policies increase unemployment. D.C. is like a separate country, and the politicians are increasing jobs … but only for their wealthy buddies, and not the average American.

Indeed, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich says that Obama is simply trying to distract us, so we forget how grim the unemployment situation is. And, no, it is not bad advice from his advisers, but Obama himself which has made the calls on  ignoring unemployment.

Americans are getting hammered, and so it is no surprise that unemployment is America’s number one concern.

Obama Considers Unemployment to Be a Good Thing

A new book by Ron Suskind shows that Obama thinks high levels of unemployment show that Obama thinks that everything is fine the way it is:

A few weeks later the economic team was back to the discussion of stimulus versus deficit reduction. The October jobless figures, out in mid-November, were now clear: unemployment had jumped to 10.2 percent.

 

***

 

Both [Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers and chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer] were, in fact, were concerned by something the president had said in a morning briefing: that he thought the high unemployment was due to productivity gains in the economy. Summers and Romer were startled.

 

“What was driving unemployment was clearly deficient aggregate demand,” Romer said, “We wondered where this could have been coming from. We both tried to convince him otherwise. He wouldn’t budge.”

Summers had been focused intently on how to spur demand, and on what might drive a meaningful recovery. Since the summer, in meeting after meeting, he’d ticked off the possible candidates, and then dismissed them – “it won’t be construction, it won’t be exports, it won’t be the consumer.” But without a rise in demand, in Summers’s view, nothing else would work.

 

***

 

But productivity? The implications were significant. If Obama felt that 10 percent unemployment was the product of sound, productivity-driven decisions by American business, then short-term government measures to spur hiring were not only futile but unwise.

 

The two economists strained their shared memory of dozens of meetings: had they said something he’d misconstrued? At one point, Summers had mentioned how Keynes once wrote in a 1938 letter that the labor movement depressed productivity, and maybe Obama saw that the disruptions in the economy from the Great Panic gave employers an opportunity – an excuse, actually – to harvest latent productivity gains.

 

After a month, frustration turned to resignation. “The president seems to have developed his own view,” Romer said.

Obama is wrong. Economists Lawrence Mishel, John Miller, Jeannette Wicks-Lim, Mike Konzcal, and many others have shown that unemployment is not a good sign, and that this episode of joblessness is not caused by increased productivity.

As the Wall Street Journal reported last year:

[In] a new paper[,] Steven Davis of Chicago Booth School of Business, R. Jason Faberman of the Philadelphia Fed and John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland — take a deep dive into Labor Department data and come up with an estimate of what they call “recruiting intensity,” a measure of employers’ vacancy-filling efforts including advertising, screening and wage offers.

 

Their finding: Employers haven’t been trying as hard as they usually do.

 

***

 

Depressing as it might seem, the finding is in some ways encouraging. It suggests that the trouble with hiring might be more a “cyclical” function of low business confidence than a chronic, “structural” ailment that will last for years to come.

As Business Insider notes, survey after survey shows that lack of demand is the main problem businesses face, and the main reason they aren’t hiring.

The rich may love unemployment, but small businesses don’t. Grim conditions for the average American means that small businesses are slowing down, rather than hiring.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:24 | 1693205 aerial view
aerial view's picture

Big picture: post 911 the directive out of Washington was to distract the American people with the biggest credit/borrowing/spending spree in history (buy homes with 0 down, use home equity lines, multiple credit cards, etc.) while new wars were started, banks devised their own WMDs (cds, mbs) and personal privacy protections were almost totally eliminated (under the guise of anti-terrorist measures and false flag events).

The financial system bailouts were known in advance as it was the only way to transfer such tremendous wealth (without being obvious) from the middle class to the elite who are intent on lowering the standard of living of all U.S. citizens to that of other countries. This is nothing more than another debt enslavement tactic and a big step closer to greater control with further loss of freedom by the American citizen. Will anyone wake up and do anything about it? Those who are retired or on welfare really don't care; those out of school don't understand and the remainder are working slaves who are just trying to survive and have neither the time nor energy to unite. Sad, very sad!

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:52 | 1692983 Carl Weetabix
Carl Weetabix's picture

"he thought the high unemployment was due to productivity gains in the economy"

Yes, curiously on the exact same day that Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, the galtian overlords came up with a revolutionary discovery that dramatically increased productivity.

Wow, who would'a thunk! Glad we have an 11-dimensional chess playing president to point that out for us.

Stupid me, I thought it was a demand problem.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:11 | 1692731 Diamond Jim
Diamond Jim's picture

could it be that unemployment is still high because..corporations and especially small businesses are concerned about hiring new workers due to the impending Obamacare...ie. if they hire they are now on the hook for massive amounts of funding of these new employeees via their healthcare.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:14 | 1693115 Carl Weetabix
Carl Weetabix's picture

I cannot speak for small corporations, but from direct experience with large corporations, they simply do not sweat to any significant degree over "regulatory uncertainty", deficits and resulting future tax liabilities, nor things like Obamacare. These things are frankly small potatoes to the bottom line, plus people generally overate the forethought, organization, and sophistication of businesses.

No, generally speaking when large companies don't spend and don't hire it's because they lack demand, and in this case demand fell first.

The one caveat is (non-real economy) financial companies, who's interests are more directly tied to such issues, particularly when such regulation is reigning in prior uncontrolled practices.

Again, my experience is that people greatly overate the amount to which upper management at corporations focus on long term economic and political issues. Most are focused for good reason on their own plans and day to day operations. "regulatory uncertainty" isn't ignored, but generally is lower tier than other concerns.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:54 | 1692653 goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

Both the President and his economists were correct.  The problem is insufficient aggregate demand CAUSED by productivity gains.  Productivity gains, by definition, are the same production with less labor.  Indeed, if this "debate" really occured, the President had the better arguement because he was focusing on the real cause of unemployment, not its syptom (inadequate "demand").

If Suskind desired to explore the issue more deeply, perhaps he would have discovered a real dispute in the White House.  For example, how much of the productivity gains were a result of technology advances and how much from "free trade" with prison colonies, er, "developing economies"?  Or how much was a result of in increasing percentage of the nation's wealth concentrating into the hands of those who create little demand (i.e., the FIRE economy)?

As it stands, though, Suskin's book is a gossip column not an economic treatise and we should treat it accordingly. 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:54 | 1692995 Jena
Jena's picture

Oh right, those damned ATMs...

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:51 | 1692641 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Twilite Zone? Hasnt Obama been whirl winding around the country saying we must create jobs now and he needs $500 billion or whatever to do it? 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:42 | 1692611 yabs
yabs's picture

the government has no place to be interferinmg in the economy in the first placxe

\they are there to make sure rules are followed by the private sector and to provide infdrastructure ie roads etc they have no place in the overall workings of a free market economy

they should just get out of the way

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:03 | 1692403 Hannibal
Hannibal's picture

I'll say, "keep your stink'g low paying jobs and shove them up up your asses!"

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:42 | 1692321 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Your comment is 99% correct but you do not know that the U.N. has been sidelined completely have you? Did you think it was coincidence the Clintons are interested in taking Zoelicks job at the World Bank instead of being Secretary General of the U.N. like they were yapping about back in late 1990's?

Not that I agree with any NWO that doesn't include the actual PEOPLE, but the world actually would have had better representation under the U.N. vs. World Bank via BIS. Bankers make loans. They do not do any kind of fiscal policy.

This conversation is kind of irrelevant. The global financial system is flying apart before American/Chinese financeers have finished the Chinese peg. China becoming the reserve currency and America "losing it" is not a BUG. It is a FEATURE. It is for this reason Sr. Politicans and IB's felt there was little risk in looting the Treasury these last few years. They were wrong.

The Bankers made a couple of mistakes with their grand plans for the Chinese peg. They did not factor variance in the accelerated rate of business. The second mistake is investor confidence in China and the cultures do not harmonize yet and need much more time (perhaps couple more decades). But all back-door arrangements are 2014 and 2015 which is now making it out in Mainstream News. Because of these mistakes the Chinese will be screwed, America is screwed, Europe is screwed, the trade wars have begun and where trade stops flowing, armies do. The only silver lining in all of this is that the worlds economic financial system will be rebuilt after WW3 and become a utility like Bitcoin is trying to do. The political system will be digital as well. Mankind may get 250-300 years out of Republics because they will be a bit more resiliant to attempted and misguided centralization. Natural cycles of centralzation and decentralization should not be so carelessly screwed with and nor should Bankers run the world. They make LOANS, they do not enjoy fiscal policy whatsoever.

As for Summers, I have mixed opinions. He fucked up, bad but I do know he did actually make many attempts to convince the President on proper revene generating ideas which would have helped labor. Perhaps little in the short run but better in the long run.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:42 | 1692320 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Your comment is 99% correct but you do not know that the U.N. has been sidelined completely have you? Did you think it was coincidence the Clintons are interested in taking Zoelicks job at the World Bank instead of being Secretary General of the U.N. like they were yapping about back in late 1990's?

Not that I agree with any NWO that doesn't include the actual PEOPLE, but the world actually would have had better representation under the U.N. vs. World Bank via BIS. Bankers make loans. They do not do any kind of fiscal policy.

This conversation is kind of irrelevant. The global financial system is flying apart before American/Chinese financeers have finished the Chinese peg. China becoming the reserve currency and America "losing it" is not a BUG. It is a FEATURE. It is for this reason Sr. Politicans and IB's felt there was little risk in looting the Treasury these last few years. They were wrong.

The Bankers made a couple of mistakes with their grand plans for the Chinese peg. They did not factor variance in the accelerated rate of business. The second mistake is investor confidence in China and the cultures do not harmonize yet and need much more time (perhaps couple more decades). But all back-door arrangements are 2014 and 2015 which is now making it out in Mainstream News. Because of these mistakes the Chinese will be screwed, America is screwed, Europe is screwed, the trade wars have begun and where trade stops flowing, armies do. The only silver lining in all of this is that the worlds economic financial system will be rebuilt after WW3 and become a utility like Bitcoin is trying to do. The political system will be digital as well. Mankind may get 250-300 years out of Republics because they will be a bit more resiliant to attempted and misguided centralization. Natural cycles of centralzation and decentralization should not be so carelessly screwed with and nor should Bankers run the world. They make LOANS, they do not enjoy fiscal policy whatsoever.

As for Summers, I have mixed opinions. He fucked up, bad but I do know he did actually make many attempts to convince the President on proper revene generating ideas which would have helped labor. Perhaps little in the short run but better in the long run.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:25 | 1692523 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

In reply to raging debate:

Your reoccurring statement “Bankers make loans. They do not do any kind of fiscal policy.” Is the funniest thing I ever heard in light of the fact that none have been brought to Justice for Fraud and how about MERS and the rest of the toxic waste that goes on giving Ha. Ha.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:22 | 1692788 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Are you implying Windcatcher that I am glossing over or don't understand that massive fraud and zero accountability? If bankers run the world and governments have abdicated their fiscal responsibility to them, if neither governments or bankers are working on fiscal policy how the fuck are the people going to be able to reorganize themselves to raise capital, innovate or grow? 

Whether the bankers do time in the steel pagoda or not their industry will now shrink massively and they know it. The debt can't be serviced, they know that now too even though it didn't prevent them from extracting every last once of money while they could.

 I don't give them a pass retard just because I am explaining to you why the bankers and sr. politicians felt no fear the last few years of looting Treasury blind or what their plans are which originated with Nixon/Kissinger Burns in 1972. If you don't understand the WHY you cannot never hold financeers to account for acts of treason against your own host nation. The U.S. government in 2013 will use this bartering chip portions of the debt the American people are not accountable for.    

 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:25 | 1692787 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Are you implying Windcatcher that I am glossing over or don't understand that massive fraud and zero accountability? If bankers run the world and governments have abdicated their fiscal responsibility to them, if neither governments or bankers are working on fiscal policy how the fuck are the people going to be able to reorganize themselves to raise capital, innovate or grow? 

Whether the bankers do time in the steel pagoda or not their industry will now shrink massively and they know it. The debt can't be serviced, they know that now too even though it didn't prevent them from extracting every last once of money while they could.

 I don't give them a pass retard just because I am explaining to you why the bankers and sr. politicians felt no fear the last few years of looting Treasury blind or what their plans are which originated with Nixon/Kissinger Burns in 1972. If you don't understand the WHY you cannot ever hold financeers to account for acts of treason against your own host nation. The U.S. government in 2013 will use this bartering chip to repudiate portions of the debt the American people are not accountable for.  This is fight club after all so go fuck yourself simpleton. Your still a sheeple and still no next to nothing.  

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:53 | 1692650 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Yea bankers just 'hand out the money, they do not set any economic policy'...sure this guy doesnt see the big picture at all.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:28 | 1692824 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Know the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy much Sheep? I have read your shit for two years here. Your name is fitting, unlike Windwatcher your only a partial retard. Its my first post to you, gotta fight.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:19 | 1692199 alchemystic
alchemystic's picture

Out of work for 23 months, fineley a job created for me, 4 days of work, then I'll be unemployed again!

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:12 | 1692161 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

In reply to Overmedicatun: The national concept of “Free Trade” (free to whom?) globalization and giving up national sovereignty is at the root (by design) of our current national economic collapse.

 

The “Fair Trade” Main Street Capitalism business model of Free Enterprise, competitive markets free from multinational monopolies, national sovereignty and small business (which employees 70% of American workers) has been abandoned.

 

The American People have been abandoned for the sake of the Fascist New World Order. The cartel of Global Fascist (banksters and Big Oil) have crashed the good old USA; their allegiance is to the UN and “legal” but secret “Free” trade agreements and the totalitarian, Fascist (joining of government with multinational corporations) NWO.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:43 | 1692326 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

No.

It is a US world order. UN, IMF etc are just extensions to the US.

What is going on is that US citizens have a deep culture of entitlements and participated to a multi generational game, thinking they were secured in the winner' side through multiple group membership like US middle class, white race, US citizenship, capitalists etc...

Alas, as the Ponzi scheme supporting the US prosperity is forced to a halt by the physical limitations to expansion (Earth is finite), it happens there are way too many US citizens, not enough Indians to secure US citizens in their entitlements.

More and more US citizens are slipping to the losing side of the US world order while they think that fate should be reserved to Indians, negroes, third worlders and all who are already squeezed beyond breaking point to enable US citizens in their lavish life style.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:54 | 1692659 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

AnAnonymous the US is just a corporate arm of the Crown.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:02 | 1693043 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

No. It is a US world order. It is no longer a British world order.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:55 | 1692379 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

In reply to anonymous: I see why you have a bag over your head! Now just breathe slowly and the real world will go away and you will not hate your fellow Americans and your children so much. Ha. Ha.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:18 | 1692487 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The real world? But I live in the real world. And this is a US world order.

Stating facts has nothing to do with love or hate, even though, admittedly, the group culture of US citizens leads them to self censor when they know facts adverse to their group and exaggerate when they know facts adverse to others'groups (even though US citizens largely prefer propaganda to facts)

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 09:20 | 1691938 TruthHunter
TruthHunter's picture

If Obama calls the Republicans' bluff and offers 0% tax rates to those who create enough

jobs, it will pull the sheet off their naked greed.

 

If there was a rational alternative, would there be enough honest people

to kick both parties to the curb?

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 09:24 | 1691953 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Who ever called for 0% tax rates? Post the link

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 09:31 | 1691965 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Rick (I speak for the banks) Perry for one;

Here is the link fucknut;

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/rick-perry-proposes-l...

 

The best part is this dipshit wants to lower the rate to zero for corporate America, what the fuck about my small business?  Just more evidence the rick Perry is a bank and conglomorate shill.  Ron Paul 2012.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:55 | 1692666 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Red herring....the corporations ALREADY pay 0 taxes!

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:12 | 1692454 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

Under the Clinton-Bush-Obama fascism trend you as a small business owner are the enemy. You should feel happy they still let you breathe air without regulation, you are releasing CO2 whenever you exhale. Small business is the bane of the corporate society, you are the competition.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 09:07 | 1691901 lamont cranston
lamont cranston's picture

After 22+ years managing employees (much like the cat roundup commercial rom 2-3 years ago), I woke up on the 4th of July to a police call notifying me that 2 employees had totalled a company pickup truck with three of their children in it. After asking if all were OK, I "gave them The Donald". The next day the remainder were dismissed, with one accepting contract labor work when he incorporated and got $100K GL covcerage. Which he has. And with better work ethic.

In the intervening two months, it has been bliss. Accountemps is more than glad to send BOB by once a week. Subs are willing to do anything anywhere. Sure, I now drive 5,000 mi/month minimum managing projects within a 200 mi radius but can live with 36 mpg in the Jetta TDI. To wit, with no apologies:

"Full time employees? Full time employees??? Hahahahaha...We don't need any stinkin' full-time employees."

 

 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 08:56 | 1691873 knukles
knukles's picture

Holy shit.
Fabian socialism on the march.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 08:51 | 1691860 robobbob
robobbob's picture

For the thousandth time:

Obama is a marxist. His parents and grand parents were marxists. Their friends were marxists. He took marxist classes in school(not that anyone has seen the transcripts). He hung out with marxists.

you all can argue on what kind and how radical

he doesn't just not understand capitalism, he HATES it.

In a marxist's world, unemployment doesn't matter because the government is paying them anyway, therefore, there is no net change in the economy. Not to mention, every new person they can get on government handouts is another potential voter. Just like a crack dealer handing out free samples.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 16:41 | 1694368 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. -- Benito Mussolini

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:42 | 1692608 TheMerryPrankster
TheMerryPrankster's picture

Obama isn't a Marxist, his parents were CIA, he is a corporatist. The CIA is a tool of lndustrial and financial espionage. Obama has never met a corporation he didn't like. Obama likely was schooled by the CIA whether he knew it or not and being the intelligent chap he is, he likely knew it.

Obama isn't the problem, he is merely a tool in the hands of those who are the problem.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:31 | 1693254 robobbob
robobbob's picture

"he is a corporatist"

Oh yes. I'm sure he is. And marxism has a place for them too. They're like socialists when it comes to social policy, but they rely on private business to carry out their centrally planned economic objectives. They even have their own name, .....fascist.

But I was trying to not be too incendiary.

As far a being as tool, that goes without saying. No one gets to the white house without selling out to someone. But that doesn't mean that who they are doesn't color their decisions or policies. When the TPTB buy a sports car, they expect it to be fast. When they buy a truck, they expect it to carry heavy loads. A hooker must be, ...ah well, you know. So when they buy a marxist politician, they must be expecting them to.........?

You also seem to think that the elites' "industrial/financial" complex is somehow against the spread of socialism. To the contrary, it is the greatest tool of slavery, looting, and control ever devised. Nothing says profitability like a government guarenteed cartel, or government mandated compliance by your customers. Socialism is so fantastically clever and subtle in fact, that people even demand to be a part of it. The new serfdom, where instead of demanding the nobles' heads on a stick, people are fighting to become the serfs.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:45 | 1692335 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Obama is your typical US citizen president. He has only acted the US citizen way, trying to further and protect the best interests of US citizens.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:32 | 1692273 Flocking swans
Flocking swans's picture

Marxists believe: "workers of the world unite!"

statusquObama believes: workers of the world go home....that high unemployment is a good thing if due to "productivity gains in the economy."

YOU don't understand who obomber is because ur one of those: 'My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with facts!'

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:59 | 1693277 robobbob
robobbob's picture

you don't seem to understand, and dont' want to be confused with facts. Marxism is a philosophy that underlays many different factions. Communism is one. Socialist is another.

One word

fascist

look it up. and not in a liberal/progessive dictionary. read the actual history. what did they stand for. what did they pomote. what policies did they actually carry out.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 15:24 | 1693951 Flocking swans
Flocking swans's picture

It seems that not only is your mind made up, but also made of made up definitions.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:22 | 1692188 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

robobbob

repeat what you say 1 million times, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Obama's handouts to financial tycoons, health insurance racketeers, and his promotion of global militarism in support of global oil demonstrate he is NOT a "marxist", but is instead a  capitalist (and a croney and/or fascist one if you like).

Coming up with your own personal definition of marxism does NOT prove your argument either.

 "Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression." - Wikipedia

 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:54 | 1693365 robobbob
robobbob's picture

you can't seem to get your hands around this idea

Fascism: socialist public policy, coupled with centrally planned corporatist economic policy. Fascism is a form of socialism. Which is a form of marxism. Contrary to decades of hiding the truth, fascists ARE marxists. From a marxist point of view, communists are on the left, and fascists are on the right. Socialists are the middle compromise. And none of them stand for individual liberty or free market activity.

The West hasn't practiced "capitalism" for many decades. If they did, most of wall street would have been wiped out long ago, either by speculative folly, or the underclass dragging them into the street. But by letting them tap into mandated government cashflows, backstopping business losses, and bribing the poor, the exploited, and the unlucky, fascism as headed off both of those outcomes, so far.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 14:32 | 1693516 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 Again your conflation of "marxism" and "socialism" and "fascism" only results from your self-made and circular definitions (e.g . fascism has a "socialist public policy").

If language has no common basis, and words are given personal (typically hidden) meaning, communication breaks down.

 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:11 | 1693099 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Foolish debate. In theory, Marxism and Fascism were supposed to be different. In practice, they are identical. You give the goodies to your friends by stealing from the people.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 14:54 | 1693721 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 "the people"?

not so identical whether to support the workers and the poor or the wealthy and corporations.

Those who identify the problem as "stealing" property have no logical basis for altering the current distribution of wealth ownership and concomitant power (alteration which necessarily entails removing some propreitary so-called ownership "rights").

 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 13:11 | 1693098 Raging Debate
Raging Debate's picture

Foolish debate. In theory, Marxism and Fascism were supposed to be different. In practice, they are identical. You give the goodies to your friends by stealing from the people.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:49 | 1692356 outsidertrader
outsidertrader's picture

Oh well if it's in Wikipedia it must be true.

 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:31 | 1692261 I Am Ben
I Am Ben's picture

I blame Canada

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 08:46 | 1691838 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

tariffs again only presented as BAD BAD on the MSM/CNBC types they even say there is a threat of Tariffs in the air as if it was the plague.

Mondern economic thought has been brain washed when it comes to Tariffs..perhaps a NWO is impossible with Nation states protecting their work forces??

the fact is with the lowering of tariffs in USA you have an immediate loss of jobs for American workers..the free trade idiots say hey but look at all the cheap stuff we get in return..LOL

If one can follow the dots..a true Nationalistic leader in USA would impose major tariffs on all Manufactured goods coming here...Good Jobs would flood the USA.. the 1950's were not just a result of WWII but of no imports into USA..and we had one earner families and

well paid work force.

anyone care to take this on and propose Free trade is good for America?? try it if you think it can hold water.

 

 

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:00 | 1692082 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

In reply to Overmedicatun: The national concept of “Free Trade” (free to whom?) globalization and giving up national sovereignty is at the root (by design) of our current national economic collapse.

 

The “Fair Trade” Main Street Capitalism business model of Free Enterprise, competitive markets free from multinational monopolies, national sovereignty and small business (which employees 70% of American workers) has been abandoned.

 

The American People have been abandoned for the sake of the Fascist New World Order. The cartel of Global Fascist (banksters and Big Oil) have crashed the good old USA; their allegiance is to the UN and “legal” but secret “Free” trade agreements and the totalitarian, Fascist (joining of government with multinational corporations) NWO.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:47 | 1692350 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

No.

The root of the current situation is simply the phyisical impossibility to maintain and developp the US world ponzi at required rates.

Inputs are not stolen fast enough from the exterior to feed the US monster.

It has little to do with policies in the present. Only with policies adopted in the past and that are reaching their natural end.

Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:59 | 1692398 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

In reply to anonymous the propagandist:

I see why you have a bag over your head! Now just breathe slowly and the real world will go away and you will not hate your fellow Americans and your children so much.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!