This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Is It Ironic That This Is Labor Day?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Peter Tchir chimes in with some observations of supreme irony:

It is also ironic that more time has been spent trying to figure out the impact of 45,000 Verizon strikers on NFP, than has been spent on trying to figure out what sort of a system we have where 45,000 employees feel comfortable going on strike when there are NO jobs, and management caves in to their demands.  Maybe Obama should address that sort of mentality in his jobs speech next week.  Maybe the problem is more at the core of what this country has become than what some new tax incentive to hire can fix.  If anything, the tax incentive will likely be good for lawyers who will be paid by big corporations to figure out how to get the most benefit for the least amount of actual change.  Maybe I'm being too cynical or maybe that is another core problem that should be addressed, but guess that is too much like hard work for politicians, and might even affect some politicians' friends and campaign contributers.

I guess now I can wait for the Europe going home rally and the QE3 rally, or can start enjoying the beach for Labour day and wait for next week to see how long any bounce (if there is one) lasts.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:55 | 1626179 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

It is ironic, satan worshippers have a sense of humour.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:24 | 1626199 BaBaBouy
BaBaBouy's picture

.

Like We've Been Saying For Eons Bitchez...

Get GOLD!

 

And what the Feck Is the EU Waiting For... Throw the Greeks out Already.

Everybody there gets free Fiat Drachmas, and Greece opens up for business

and Cheap Vacations for all of us!

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:24 | 1626356 Undecided
Undecided's picture

Correction through the greek leaders out.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 14:09 | 1627236 redpill
redpill's picture

Zero jobs.  All along I thought it was spelled Obama, I guess it's 0bama.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:05 | 1626252 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Nader pointed out a long fucking time ago that every paper has a business section but no labor section.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:19 | 1626327 Moneyswirth
Moneyswirth's picture

There are plenty of papers focusing on "Labor".  One in particular is called The Daily Worker.  

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:44 | 1626708 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The labor market is covered in the "Help Wanted" and "Situation Wanted" sections.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:35 | 1626406 trav7777
trav7777's picture

yeah, OMG fuckin workers striking and management CAVES IN.

Wow...what a way to characterize things.  Workers have caved in to management for decades. 

Oh but we should just CAVE IN more so execs can get even bigger bonuses like vultures feasting on the carcasses of workers' salaries recovered by laying them off.  Awesome.

It never amazes me how many oligarch bootlickers there are.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:55 | 1626495 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

got my tongue pierced cause they like their feet tickled

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:57 | 1626509 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

Love your sense of humor DJ, keep it coming.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:03 | 1626543 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

comedy is just a coping mechanism for tragedy 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:33 | 1626640 Leopold B. Scotch
Leopold B. Scotch's picture

Straw man.

What you need is free flow of labor and individual rights restored. 

Big labor was a response to corporatist collusion in government attempting to rig the system of smaller competitors running circles around them, which in turn crimped the labor market and limited options for workers.  Inefficient, bad for the economy as a whole, and most certainly NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.

In a free market, labor that deserves a higher wage due to productivity / capability, will garnish a higher wage.  Labor that mails it in stagnates or is dumped.

Big labor stepped in and said "the corporations are screwing everyone else" and rather than addressing the problem -- corporatism, Big Labor carved out its own form of screwing everyone else fiefdom.  It also looked at all the saved capital that was being reinvested in compound fashion, resulting in an ever increasing standard of living for all workers fleeing the rest of the world and coming to the U.S. shores, and demanded a cut of that amount going to investment in the future / betterment of the economy.  Receiving strike privilege from Congress (vs. being fired and replaced with someone of equal skill, ready to work) merely enabled unions to run off with the nations' economic seed corn and use it to feather union members nests and, especially, cement union leaders power.

But in the end --- What big labor got in benefits, the average non-union joe had to pay in higher prices or lower wages left over elsewhere. (if everyone became union, there'd be no benefit... just higher prices for all...)

Bottom line, though, unions did nothing to solve the corporatist problem.  They only compounded it by adding another parasite on the backs of real wealth producers and innovators.

100 years later, big corporatist biz has totally screwed up competition in the U.S., while big banking has totally robbed the common man through legalized counterfeiting, while the economic policies it has pushed (along with its puppet, the Fed and its partnership in Congress) and economic structure that is so F'd up it's DOA.

Meanwhile, Big Labor has played its roll is screwing up the labor market / viability to do biz.

Both looking out for their interests only at the expense of the common man / a viable economy.  F the m both, hard and often.   These Verizon Workers are out of touch Dipshits of the First Royal Order.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:25 | 1626858 MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

Your comment, if not outright brilliant, is a very perspicacious skewering of the Hegelian dialect/false dichotomy we see so much, even here.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:55 | 1626498 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

"...a system we have where 45,000 employees feel comfortable going on strike when there are NO jobs..."

A better question is "How bad were things for workers at Verizon that they felt they had to strike even when the economy is this far into the toilet?"  They must have been bad enough that labor felt they had nothing to lose.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:22 | 1626629 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Not bad at all. They weren't contributing to their health insurance at all. When I was under the AT&T bargained unit, we paid $30 per paycheck (bi-weekly) for health coverage for the entire family. It didn't matter how many children you had. Verizon bargained workers paid nothing. That was the main sticking point for the strike.Apparently, you've never dealt with the CWA

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:26 | 1626641 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

but analyzed outside the vaccuum with record profits, record exec pay and nothing "tickling down" except the vice president's urine...?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:07 | 1626800 Leopold B. Scotch
Leopold B. Scotch's picture

They are always free to test the labor market.

On the other hand, if you want to discuss corporatist benefits / monopolies afforded to Verizon that allows them massive benefits at the expense of smaller competitors who might hire those Verizon workers at a higher / more competitive wage, I'm happy to discuss that angle since it is the angle that is good for the economy / everyone in the economy, will make the nation wealthier as a whole, as opposed to these workers looking out only for themselves at the expense of all else.

These striking workers will, in the end, result in verizon charging more to the end consumer, who always picks up the tab either directly or by having to deal with 1-800 number phone calls to heavy-accented foreigners.

Yours Truly,

Another Verizon Consumer Whose Bills are High Enough from Feathering the Nests of the Politically Connected

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:35 | 1626865 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:29 | 1626869 MacGruber
MacGruber's picture

Well stated Trav, "oligarch bootlickers", more like oligarch salad tossers. It never ceases to amaze the level of dislocation in the view that somehow if regulation went away and if labor was truly destroyed somehow the nation would be a better place. History is prologue in this arena. Before organized labor kids worked in factories to support their families, and the same families were owned by the company store. Strikes were met with national gaurd troops who shot and killed people looking to get a fraction of the money that the elite bathed in daily.

Say what you like about unions, but we all owe a great deal of gratitude to organized labor. Without it, most likely all of us would be under the heel of a much larger and uninsatiable corporate boot.

The real irony of labor day is that the lowest classes of society were the ones that were supposed to have a holiday, and instead they are working this weekend at all the super sales to keep the well heeled classes satisfied. Another cynical joke that is modern America.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 13:19 | 1627046 MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

Anyone who reads about the struggles of labor in this country up to and including the early part of the twentieth century without rooting for the workers is a sociopath, but anyone who looks around today at the political, social, and economic landscape and sees Matewan, West Virginia is completely out of touch with reality.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:04 | 1626180 wang (not verified)
wang's picture

what matters (sadly() is how the equity markets react

day finishes green

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:17 | 1626315 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

And further proof of no QE...what ya see is what you get from here on out, slow grind to Gamorah.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:56 | 1626186 papaswamp
papaswamp's picture

I'm wondering how someone can go on strike and collect unemployment. That is some bull fucking shit right there.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:57 | 1626196 DefiantSurf
DefiantSurf's picture

they probably can't collect, but the BLS counts the applications, not the payments.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:57 | 1626197 midtowng
midtowng's picture

They can't. They filed for unemployment is all. Don't believe the hype.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:24 | 1626355 ReactionToClose...
ReactionToClosedMinds's picture

..... yes they can file & collect ... it is state law dependent and 'waivers' for 'friends' (big labor ... nothing more than a cartel in it's own way) ... who help dead people vote three times

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:48 | 1626453 midtowng
midtowng's picture

No they can't. There's been court decisions concerning this.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:05 | 1626553 SokPOTUS
SokPOTUS's picture

They can only collect if the company doesn't appeal.

It works like this:

1. Striking worker files for unemployment.  Reason: Lack of Work.

2. Striking worker is awarded unemployment due to lack of work; collects $0.00 for the first week of unemployment because that's how the system works.

3. Company files appeals for all strking workers awarded unemployment.

4. Striking workers collect unemployment checks while not working (while it counts) until appeals are heard within a few weeks.  Individually, one-by-one.

5. Company wins all appeals by demostrating that there was a strike; Individually, one-by-one.

6. Striking workers receive notice from State to repay UI benefits received due to loss on appeal.

7. Striking workers repay UI funds now that they are working and collecting pay checks again.

Objective achieved.

Cash flow received when needed, repaid when not.  Company management made to jump through hoops an forced to appeal and document each worker, their empoyment dates, earnings, etc.; attend appeal hearings.  Taxpayer foots the bill for all of it.

WIN-WIN-WIN.

 

 

 

 

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:42 | 1626694 Surly Bear
Surly Bear's picture

New York State:

Q: What if I'm out of work due to a strike?

A: If you lose your job because of a labor dispute (strike, or other industrial controversy (except for lockouts)) in the establishment where you are employed, you will not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits for 49 days. You may be eligible sooner if:

  • the labor dispute ends and you are still unemployed or
  • your employer hires replacement workers

The Department of Labor (DOL) advises anyone with doubts about eligibility to collect UI benefits to file a claim for benefits.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:58 | 1626201 Dr.Evil
Dr.Evil's picture

No wonder the management caved!

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:22 | 1626342 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

The upper 8%'s propaganda to make us fight each other instead of them works once again.

That's it...seeth with hatred toward those folks who are taking on their owners and managment when they should just comply and work.

For being a country full of tough talking hardasses about war on terr'rists or Muslims or whoever we might hate, we're a rather compliant and obedient lot when it comes to bending over and taking it from our owners. In fact, we will really kick some ass on those people who stand up to them.

I've always found this behavior quite ironic and hard to comprehend.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:37 | 1626414 papaswamp
papaswamp's picture

I'm not saying they cannot or should not strike...but it is their choice to walk out thus they should not collect unemployment versus the person who had no choice because their job was terminated and/or moved overseas.

Striking is a choice that includes risk of the employer not agreeing. That risk should not be transferred to everyone else. 

Sat, 09/03/2011 - 08:06 | 1629245 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 They are NOT eligible to collect.

I'm amazed how easily a misleading headline to an article so easily becomes urban folklore,

even here on ZH.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:39 | 1626424 trav7777
trav7777's picture

bingo.  WTF needs to happen here, CEO payscales need to go to 500:1 to regular joes?  THAT is a desirable outcome?

Or maybe it's that these tough talking full of shit lardasses are just jealous that the VZ workers had the balls to demand that management stop FIRING PEOPLE to feast on the carcasses of their former salaries like mfing vultures?

I worked at one of VZ's competitors and this is exactly what I saw.  H1Bs and even they got laid off when the mgmt chain above them needed to make a bonus.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:02 | 1626529 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

With a first name like George.

As many have said,

passivity is complicity

and your worst enemy

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:27 | 1626647 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

You have a choice to work for them or not. Go start your own fucking company and give all your employees free healthcare and great pay. I don't side with anyone in these strikes. The employer decides the pay and benefits. The employee chooses to work under those conditions or not. No laws are being broken. Why do you seeth with hatred towards employers who provide jobs to these unions?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:53 | 1626746 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Gee...we have a Libertarian in our midsts. Who would have guessed? It appears you've swallowed "free market" fairy tale whole.

I don't seeth with hatred toward employers, but I don't tolerate double standards too well, and there seem to be lots of them in companies between managment and workers.

Also, what difference does it make if no laws are being broken? Since 2008 we've already seen that there are two sets of laws in this country, one for the wealthy and connected and one for everyone else. You can bet if the striking workers broke laws people would have been arrested or beaten. If the owners broke laws, it's likely nothing would happen, or it would drag out forever until nothing happened.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:23 | 1626848 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

it's not a "free" market and we are not "free" citizens. The extremely wealthy are running this place...into the ground, working with the government, stealing the citizens wealth through complicated criminal systems and the laws clearly do not apply to them.   

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:53 | 1626752 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It's a matter of perspective. Lots of folks exhibit knee jerk support of "labor." But if a guy came to their house with a lawn mower and insisted on being paid more than the homeowner was willing to pay to cut the grass most folks would tell him to go away. If he did not go away but insisted that you must hire him at the rate he demands and he says that you can't hire anyone else and that you can't mow the lawn yourself folks would get pissed.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:10 | 1626807 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Yeah, some people have this knee jerk support for the employers. But if a guy hired you to cut his grass for an agreed price, but when you finished and he started balking on paying you and complained that he didn't like the work, you'd just have to take it right instead of demanding your pay?

All of these little stories can be told make the point you want to present.

However, the reality of where things stand today is that the ultra wealthy (corporations) have enriched themselves at everyone else's expense via the government that they own. So yeah, fighting against them seems to be the good fight in my mind. Sorry if that's to low rent and blue collar for you righteous business guys.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:25 | 1626855 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

But if a guy hired you to cut his grass for an agreed price, but when you finished and he started balking on paying you and complained that he didn't like the work, you'd just have to take it right instead of demanding your pay?

 

That has happened to me and I simply stopped working for those people.

 

However, the reality of where things stand today is that the ultra wealthy (corporations) have enriched themselves at everyone else's expense via the government that they own. So yeah, fighting against them seems to be the good fight in my mind.

 

The fact that there are bad people in the world is no reason to ignore property rights and freedom of association.

Here's an idea -- why don't the unions simply purchase their own factories or other means of production? Wouldn't that be much simpler than working for bad people and constantly bitching about it?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 15:56 | 1627615 RKDS
RKDS's picture

"why don't the unions simply purchase their own factories or other means of production?"

Intellectual property law, for starters.  Then there's zoning law and regulatory capture, combined with state-sanctioned monopolies.  And did I forget to mention how they they don't have billions of dollars to invest or bribe with?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 16:31 | 1627693 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Unions have very deep pockets. Intellectual property rights can be purchased. Any regulatory obstacles which managers and investors can overcome can be overcome by the new unionized owners as well. What specifically do you believe makes it impossible for rich and powerful unions to acquire productive capital when do-nothing, exploitative factory owners and managers do it all the time?

During the 2009-10 election cycle The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees donated $87.5 million to the Democrats, SEIU donated 44 million and NEA donated $40 million. They certainly seem to have lots of money available for bribing the politicians and regulators.

However, you are correct in suggesting that the current regulatory structure inhibits commerce. Will you also recognize that the unions are part of the regulatory system and are therefore one of the causes of decreased economic activity?

Free markets exist when such constraints are removed. In a free market anyone who wants to work can simply start working without fear of falling afoul of the IRS and the endless parade of regulators.

Sat, 09/03/2011 - 03:10 | 1629114 Not For Reuse
Not For Reuse's picture

first of all, unions with deep pockets have sweet fuck all to do with what union "members" actually make. Second, do you seriously expect anyone to believe there is no barrier differential between an extant company with full lobbyists, etc., vs. a new company starting from scratch? Crazy thing is, I actually supported the same candidate that you did last election; the difference is, you seem to be a brainless bitch

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:56 | 1626189 Dismal Scientist
Dismal Scientist's picture

Dead cat bounce, bitches

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:56 | 1626191 Irish66
Irish66's picture

Reopen on 9-6.....look out 6666

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:00 | 1626198 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture


Zero job market change – first time since 1945

Even with 20% of every dollar circulating in the economy coming from government transfer payments (i.e. SNAP, Social Security, Medicare, etc.), take away credit cards, and there will be riots involving tens of millions all over the United States, within 6 to 10 weeks, at most.

And if I'm to be believed, what does this fact say about the incredibly precarious state of the State?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:01 | 1626228 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Seems we had some nuke situations in Japan in August 45'.  What comes around, goes around.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:28 | 1626376 Ausperity
Ausperity's picture

I don't think the riots will start until after the Super Bowl, when there is no NBA season to follow.

 

I do think that the Keynesians believe that the riots will be good for US GDP, because they will create demand for things like cleanup, reconstruction, and security.

 

We will have to see if the SuperCongress can effectively implement enough benefit cuts in the budget in time to make my predictions correct...

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:14 | 1626589 IMA5U
IMA5U's picture

we will have riots if obama is not elected.  it will be worse than rodney king or o.j.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:48 | 1626723 j0nx
j0nx's picture

Doubtful. Even the brothers are sick of his lying, bankster pandering bullshit.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:58 | 1626202 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Question:

Why do we need a Labor Day if nobody is going to be working?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:03 | 1626246 cossack55
cossack55's picture

There ya go again, asking too many pertinent questions. You are going on "The List" buddy.

                                   Janet "WhatfuckinConstitution" Napolitano

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:14 | 1626284 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

Why do we need a Labor Day if nobody is going to be working?

Stealth bank holiday...no withdrawals...still earning interest.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:17 | 1626310 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

It's now been officially renamed 'UnLabor Day,' which many will come to reprint as U.N.LaborDay, and some will confuse this with Mayday.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:39 | 1626422 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

People wearing blue helmets will be shot on sight.  Let them try.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:44 | 1626444 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Shhhh!

Let them continue to think that powder blue helmets are a good tactical accessory.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:27 | 1626646 toady
toady's picture

I call it labridor day and celebrate it like its my dogs birthday.

And thats coming from a guy who grew up with the UAW.

Now its all about how the unions can help corporation lower headcounts so they can offshore. Labor leaders need to get their money too!

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:26 | 1626337 Incubus
Incubus's picture

Labor is too socialistic, you asshole.  You should know by now that you bend over and spread 'em for the corporate saints;  they'll bless you with their lovely holy funds. 

Who cares about why unions were needed to be formed in the first place -- who cares about the general incompetence of any social system, thanks to complacency. The error in every human system is that there is the assumption that people in charge of other people can essentially govern without incompetence: everything says otherwise, but we'll still peacock around on a system of status.

Just a big-ass fuckin' circle is what it is.  We'll have our period of "robber barons" before labor is sanctified once more. 

 

repeat. repeat. repeat. repeat. repeat. repeat. repeat.

 

fucking insanity.  I should just take up drinking and booze past this' fuckin' life;  i think it's about time I go get another firearm.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:30 | 1626660 toady
toady's picture

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:25 | 1626357 Canuckistan Al
Canuckistan Al's picture

Perhaps we should rename it Wage Slavery Day?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:29 | 1626656 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Start your own business. 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:07 | 1626564 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Why do we need a Labor Day if nobody is going to be working?

Speak for yourself. 75% of us are still going at it hammer and tongs.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 13:21 | 1627056 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Hi all, been away a while.  Why indeed to we need Labor day, when the rest of the world celebrates it May 1st?..

Things that make you go hmm...

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 09:58 | 1626205 midtowng
midtowng's picture

A system where workers are too terrified to strike would be a far worse system because then the workers would have no power at all.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:23 | 1626350 Leopold B. Scotch
Leopold B. Scotch's picture

Straw man.

What you need is free flow of labor and individual rights restored. 

Big labor was a response to corporatist collusion in government attempting to rig the system of smaller competitors running circles around them, which in turn crimed the labor market and limited options for workers.  Inefficient, bad for the economy as a whole, and most certainly NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.

In a free market, labor that deserves a higher wage due to productivity / capability, will garnish a higher wage.  Labor that mails it in stagnates or is dumped.

Big labor stepped in and said "the corporations are screwing everyone else" and rather than addressing the problem -- corporatism, Big Labor carved out its own form of screwing everyone else fiefdom.  What big labor got in benefits, the average joe had to pay in higher prices or lower wages left over elsewhere.

100 years later, big corportist biz has totally screwed up competition in the U.S., while big banking has totally robbed the common man through legalized counterfeiting, while the economic policise it has pushed (along with its puppet, the Fed and its partnership in Congress) and economic structure that is so F'd up it's DOA.

Meanwhile, Big Labor has played its roll is screwing up the labor market / viability to do biz.

Both looking out for their interests only at the expense of the common man / a viable economy.  F the m both, hard and often.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:35 | 1626407 snowball777
snowball777's picture

If by "collusion" you mean calling out the military on people who were working 16 hour days before Pullman decided to slash their wages, refused to negotiate with them, and employed strikebreakers (sounds familiar huh?). Very little to do with productivity, everything to do with greed and corporate response to shitty economies (when given a choice between losing profits and fucking workers they make the same choice every damn time).

Cleveland needed to smooth things over with working people and so...we get Labor Day.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 13:23 | 1627063 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I hear Crickets...

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:49 | 1626467 midtowng
midtowng's picture

Unions are 12% of the labor force and shrinking. The term "Big Labor" is decades past its expiration date.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:56 | 1626501 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Yes and no. They still contribute quite a bit to political campaigns and have huge influence in many areas (especially public sector unions). But they have nothing compared to the influence of big business.

As an example, consider the police unions in CA and the idiotic "3 strikes" law they got on the books.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:19 | 1626617 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

having lawyered in the criminal justice system for two decades, have to agree on the three strikes law. Bad and stupid use of money. The felonies they include on that list to put a boy away for life are crazy. I do think a child molester should go away forever but sadly they get some of the best deals in the system and are put in programs that supposedly "cure" them.. Funny you should mention cops, they like firemen have historically compelled amazing benefits partially because of what they do but even the young cops ( at least in Washington State) are getting MUCH less retirement benefits than their superiors. They are losing their union leverage over collapsing county budgets    

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 13:42 | 1627127 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

L Scotch

Unless you abolish all property "rights", there is no "free market". That includes everything from ownership of natural resources to patents. Unless you abolish all laws regulating production, work, and property, there is no "free market". That includes everything from pollution, to workplace safety, to civil lawsuits.

Given then, that the "free market" slogan is just TPTB propaganda spin,

the dispossessed and misused majority will organize to assert their human rights, and seek their personal and collective freedom.

Although there is some truth in your complaints about unions, there is no validity to your claim that the solution lies in the restoration of a  "free market". 

Perhaps the Wobblies  were correct. Trade unions are too divisive, too easily compromised, and too limited in their demands. Maybe one big union (one big strike) is the way to go.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 13:48 | 1627148 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Unless you abolish all property "rights", there is no "free market".

 

That has to be just about the craziest thing I've ever read at ZH. Are you claiming that people can only trade freely when no one owns anything? How does one freely trade that which one does not own? Why would one attempt to acquire goods through trade if one would have no title to those goods?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 14:17 | 1627254 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 And thus you come to realize the inherent self-contradiction in the "free market" illusion.

 By establishing property rights and the laws concerning "property", one also would be placing limitations on the "market".

There can NEVER be a completely "free" market.  It is a blind alley to believe one can be established.

Too many people ignore the economic premises of property "rights" and advocate a half-ass "free market" that merely strengthens the present distribution of wealth and power by removing the (typically superficial) obstacles to their abuses.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 15:43 | 1627552 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

A free market refers to a market in which the participants are free to voluntarily contract with others. One can not seriously suggest that individuals must give up their natural rights to self and property in order for a free market to exist. On the contrary, a free market can exist only when the rights to self and property are recognized.

Your argument is similar to the one which states that a man can never be truly free because he can't flap his arms and fly. Rational, active men do not get hung up on such absurdities.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 19:41 | 1628485 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 Your argument by poor analogy is completely off base.

Although it is against the laws of physics for a man to flap his (non-existent) wings and fly on earth,

owning property and the legalisms surrounding property are NOT laws of science.

The ideas of private property, land ownership, patent rights, liability, etc. are man made creations, ideas, cultural norms, subject to amendment or even complete revocation without violating any law of the universe.

Just who do you think makes all the laws about property, property 'rights', and property use? Do you intend to "recognize" all of them now on the books?

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 22:53 | 1628822 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

A man has a clear natural right to his own body. He therefore has a clear natural right to the fruits of his own labor -- his property.

Case closed.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:44 | 1626442 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

strength in numbers = natural law

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:59 | 1626776 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

property rights = natural law

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:52 | 1626952 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

predators ripping apart the carcass of the young and weak = natural law

that's why they made up a few more

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:55 | 1626965 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture
Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique -- Murray Rothbard

 

The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the “jungle” society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter’s property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment.

 

http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=0cb48bc0-2f84-408e-8c90-757e02a29094

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 13:26 | 1627080 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

You're the only person who gives a flying fuck what Murray Rothbard thinks.

Where is this land, Libertopia, with these strange people who follow these strange rules?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 13:34 | 1627099 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If you don't believe that individuals have a right to control their own property then why worry about how much your employer pays you? By your own criteria your wages don't belong to you.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 15:12 | 1627455 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Dubious hypothesis is dubious. Nice strawman, though.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 15:28 | 1627508 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

In what way have I presented a straw man argument? If one does not believe that other individuals have a right to control their own property does it not follow that the individual holding that view can not reasonably lay claim to his own property?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 18:02 | 1628233 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Wait: who said that they "don't believe that other individuals have a right to control their own property?"  There's your answer.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:01 | 1626223 John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

This guy says the bad jobs report in August might be disregarded:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/august-jobs-report-why-actio...

excerpt:

"It's possible this awful report was heavily influenced by the multiple disruptions the economy suffered in August — from the debt ceiling and downgrade at the beginning of the month to the earthquake and hurricane at the end of the month. In which case it might be possible to disregard the bad news in this report."

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:08 | 1626248 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Daniel Gross is a moron. He does anything he can to defend the administration. I'd be willing to bet he would sell his right nut(assuming he has a pair) to give a Lewinsky to Obummer.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:05 | 1626256 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Gee, I have $7.67 left. I wish Danny would give me some investment advice.  Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a dope.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:20 | 1626332 Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

Awesome! This guy just invented the discovery that you can ignore bad news if there are other bad news elsewhere! Do you know what that means? That means he just has to find some other guys willing to disregard some other bad news because of each others bad news, and they can make a Bad News Default Swap by sticking their heads into each others sandy place!

RECURSIVE OSTRITCHES, BITCHES!

and they can run in circle and generate energy, even

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:26 | 1626362 John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

The article was absurd.  I did not actually BELIEVE what he said.  I should have turned the sarcasm indicator on when I posted that.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:49 | 1626464 Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

no worries, the sarcasm was obvious

in fact, he is so obviously non-believable that he probably won't find partners in his bad news swap scam, and he will have to pull a recursive ostrich on his own ass, and disappear where the sun don't shine

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:36 | 1626895 RSloane
RSloane's picture

"Bad News Default Swap" LOL~! That sounds like the pundits at CNBC who, after every US economic indicator rolls in like a smelly gas attack, point to the EU as the crux of all our woes.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:16 | 1626603 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

HIGHLIGHTS from the report over at the NASDQ site...

Payroll jobs were unchanged in August, following a revised 85,000 increase in July, and revised 20,000 in June. The market consensus (updated Thursday afternoon) called for a 60,000 increase for the latest month. Revisions for June and July were down net 58,000.

So June and July were originally reported at 163,000 plus, but then as per usual revised down by more than a third.  I am thinking this report will be revised down from zero to a good solid negative number, then we can have another fight about the NFP number for August. 

This is very bad news for people.  Especially since wages also showed a drop, hours worked showed a drop, and for employers the cost of employing went way up.  Every month, no matter what without fail ever, if an economic report is not to the liking of the bitchez on Wall Street they scratch around for explanations why the report is an outlier.  Only a couple times in my whole professional life have I ever seen something to the effect of "there is no way to sugar coat this report..."

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:01 | 1626226 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Management should kick their asses to the curb. There are plenty of people out there who would kill to make the money they are making as well as the benefits.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:58 | 1626507 snowball777
snowball777's picture

They wouldn't make "the money they are making" or receive "the benefits" though, would they?

Hint: the Verizon people were only asking for a renewal of their expiring contract.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:00 | 1626523 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Verizon workers are crying because they aren't making more money in an environment where the consumer of their product has declining wages. So yes kick them to the curb before they kill the goose.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:05 | 1626555 snowball777
snowball777's picture

The goose is quite profitable and handing out millions to their executives. Try again, genius.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:15 | 1626598 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Hey dumb ass. Gm used to be profitable too, until the unions sucked the company dry. Look at it now ,a once great company turned into a welfare bitch. Verizon will head down the same path because unions fail to recognize the reallity that you can't push for higher wages and benefits if nobody can afford your product. You will price yourself right out of the market.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:21 | 1626630 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Sure...it had nothing to do with decades of shitty management that collected shitloads of money and signed those contracts for gold-plated benefits.

Again: the Verizon workers only wanted the SAME DEAL THEY ALREADY HAD. And Verizon is still finding plenty of customers for their FIOS lines. Look at their 10k filings for fuck's sake.

Can you hear me now? (the costs of the benefits is lower than the cost of those annoying ads)

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:01 | 1626672 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Sure...it had nothing to do with decades of shitty management that collected shitloads of money and signed those contracts for gold-plated benefits

 

I agree those contracts should never have been signed. Management should never have caved.  But the same thing as being said then about GM that you are saying about Verizon now.....they are making plenty of money, they have a good product line..blah , blah ,blah.

Bottom line is greed on both side killed GM and it will kill Verizon eventually too.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:34 | 1626675 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

GM went bankrupt due to BILLIONS in pension liabilities along with shitty products. Those tens of millions paid to the execs, while disgusting, did not bankrupt the company. If every penny of management bonus was clawed back, GM would have still gone bankrupt. Non-unoin companies like Toyota and Honda pay their execs very well, but they are profitable. 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:15 | 1626831 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

..."along with shitty products." It's that second part of the sentence that makes your formula work.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 16:37 | 1627812 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

It really did not have nearly as much to do with legacy costs as it did with the financial arm GMAC, the PBGC picked up more than 14 billion of the unfunded pension liability.  Anti labor pundits love to blame it on labor costs, just as they did with steel workers and all the rest of organized labor heavy industry.  But in fact it is free market bullshit from the right that created the problem when they used everything in the book to gut labor, they have been since labor first organized.  It was the right that allowed the border with Mexico to become totally open, it was the right that gave undocumented workers an amnesty in the 1980's, it was the right that dreamed up and pushed for "free trade" agreements for no other reason than be able to use cheaper and more important UNORGANIZED labor, passing laws that gave incentives to American companies to dismantle plants and send them overseas to run there.  It is the right that so conspicuously fought tooth and nail to end collective bargaining without which there is no such thing as a union.  End bargaining and all that is left to labor is striking.  And then there is the single biggest force in the USA poisoning labor, the Walton Family.  And never trod a bigger wingnut than the founder of that chain.  That company has done more to damage labor than any other in the history of work.  Not to mention their bias toward selling products that are made in places that have no labor laws at all.  How many times have they been caught screwing the workers even when they knew they were in violation of laws, but preferred to pay fines than to see workers hold them accountable? 

But, I no longer shop at WalMart, I would rather spend a little more to support companies that treat workers fairly.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 16:42 | 1627830 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I used to boycott Walmart until I realized that providing a product which is reasonably priced is not a crime. It also occured to me that if the inexperienced kids and little old ladies running the Walmart cash registers would rather work for $8 an hour rather than go hungry I wouldn't be doing them a favor by not supporting their chosen place of employment.

Sat, 09/03/2011 - 02:33 | 1629075 Not For Reuse
Not For Reuse's picture

IOW, you went out like a bitch. Who gives a flying fuck what excuses you make for yourself out there on the margins of integrity? You're just a sellout piece of shit, and for some reason you want everyone to hear about how much of a bitch you are. Wow, color me unimpressed

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 16:20 | 1627735 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

GM management destroyed GM by switching the focus from designing and building good cars people would buy to a financial company that blew up when it made bad bets in the markets.  At one point in the 90's the big three dominated the commercial paper market with more than a trillion a day changing hands which had NOTHING to do with fixing the leaky windshields on pick ups or the plastic interior of an $80,000 vette.  The only reason Ford has not gone with it is that it was kept more or less in the family which has the financial dynastic wealth to withstand a lot more punishment before folding.

Why do people here think they can hit and run with a one-liner about either what makes a problem or what makes a solution?  It is just about always more complicated and because of government involvement in business these days it is almost impossible to discuss finance or economics without it boiling down to partisan bickering with the fascists being wrong. 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:48 | 1626710 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 DR Svengali, err Engali

Your solicitude for the pangs of envy that other (presumably unemployed non-union) workers may feel is most kind. And what better way to lessen those pangs than to downsize everyone?

But shouldn't "management" also be included in your recommended race to the bottom?

What if there are others (somewhere in the world) who would "kill" for management pay & benefits?

The proper course is to fire everybody. No wages for anyone. No benefits. Don't let them organize, never allow them to strike. Subsistence is all they deserve, and that only so long as they keep working hard.

Company housing and a company store - that's the ticket. Then business could afford to give everyone a job...well, still perhaps not everyone.

But it would be better for profits. More benefits to the owners. And isn't that what it's all about?

The owners, the stockholders, are the only ones deserving to benefit from whatever labor produces.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:00 | 1626784 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

If it comes to the long term survival of the company then yes management should take cuts in benefits and pay as well. But management's job is just that. They are supposed to manage the cost's of the company. They are responsible to the owers of the company, in this case the share holders. They should not be thinking short term ( just get them back to work) they should be thinking long term (what do we do today that may impact the future of this company?). General motors,and the other auto makers, always looked short term and just wanted to get the workers back to work. Now they paid the price. Well actually the tax payer and our children are paying the price since GM is now a welfare bitch.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:01 | 1626227 fbrothers
fbrothers's picture

They collect pay from their union.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:20 | 1626330 midtowng
midtowng's picture

No they don't.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:02 | 1626231 Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

Union members have no fear (at this time) of losing their jobs. This situation will radically change in the future. 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:20 | 1626335 midtowng
midtowng's picture

Sort of missed decades of strikes being busted, huh?

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:13 | 1626586 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

LJS-Sorta' caught WB7's "Inaction Jackson," n'est ce pas?

- Ned

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:02 | 1626233 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Jobs will be plentiful once we put a high bounty on some low maggots.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:02 | 1626234 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

The weather caused Verizon to cave. I think they realized that heading into the heart of hurricane season without their linemen and installers working would be political suicide. People don't care why Verizon can't fix the phones. They just want them fixed.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:06 | 1626254 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture
 

Americans are canceling or passing up cable and satellite TV subscriptions. Analysis from the Associated Press shows eight of the nine largest US providers lost a record number of subscribers in the last quarter.

 

 

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:17 | 1626313 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Got my Comcast bill yesterday.  $129 for internet and HD TV.  I'm not ready to count Netflix out yet.  They could triple their monthly bill and it will still be way cheaper than these crooks. 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:33 | 1626390 OpenEyes
OpenEyes's picture

If Comcast (and all other MSO's) start losing too many cable subscribers to Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV, etc, they will simply jack-up their rates for internet connectivity and phone services to make up the difference.  Pretty hard to download video entertainmnet without an internet connection.  

I would love to see a chart showing the average monthly cable bill over a twenty year time-frame.  I'll bet the rate of inflation on this one rivals, or even exceeds, that of healthcare and college tuition (two areas that have expereience huge price increases to the end user - far in excess of the rate of inflation).

I hate the cable companies! And I worked in the industry from 1984-1998.  I can't believe that they get away with these constant price increases and they way they nickle and dime you for a million other things.  They are worse than the Bell systems ever were.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:50 | 1626472 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

Monopolies FTW!

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:52 | 1626481 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

great post.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:33 | 1626393 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Yes TIS, they are all now exclusively hukt to Streaming Netflix.

And Free Porn.

And a little paid UFC (Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh, kick him in th enutzzzz). As a little history to that, I went for a Sharks/Canucks game in San Jose back on the boom days (1999ish). The blood lust, the battered teeth, the "allowed" level of violence. Tch. Professional hockey is th eoriginal blood sport.

And re-runs on youboob tube.

And FacePalmtm

And they're working out with their radioinactive Wei. Is that Michelle?

labour. It morphed into servitude.

In the age of iron, even at the fag end of it, irony abounds.

V

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/humor-me/

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:15 | 1626595 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

I went to a fight, and a hockey game broke out ;-)

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:36 | 1626896 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Hah! :-)

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:20 | 1626625 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

That is the best news of the year.

 

Only after the sheep detach from the info-teat can there possibly be any type of change.

 

Cut it off bitch.

Why do sheep pay to have their brains fried and/or rewired into a slave CONsumer?

 

simply amazing , the feat of the ages.

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:20 | 1626336 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Verizon is no GM, they have a wad of cash. Seems like a classic labor battle to me. Huge corporation, in this economy, thinks it can squeeze away more medical benefits (whose price is fucked up by big corrupt corporations colluding with a big corrupt government) and they give it a shot. Maybe they didn't expect anyone to shoot back.  

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:02 | 1626237 mholzman
mholzman's picture

Brilliant as usual. Why can't we ever get someone like Tyler in charge?

FYI: great article by Master Taleb on the bank robberies: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/taleb1/English

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:03 | 1626241 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

If we're arguing about the technicality of 45k jobs, we're already f'cked.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:22 | 1626347 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

+45k

If it isn't that it is the weather, or Bush, or the Chinese, or the Middle East, or Oil, or specultors, or hedge funds, or Tea Partiers.

That is the all politicans in the U.S. know, push off the blame as soon as there is some way to redirect it.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:03 | 1626242 252sparky
252sparky's picture

What kind of system?

Record corprate profits quarter after quarter.

Workers are showing some balls.  Tired of seeing it all going to the top.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:15 | 1626593 252sparky
252sparky's picture

In addition:

 

I don't understand the resentment.  Everyday someone here will post something along the line of 'If you have skills, you can get a job' and so forth.

Well guess what?  

These are VERIZON workers in the era of SMARTPHONES!

They have SKILLZ!

Again, why the resentment?  

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:23 | 1626635 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

1 guess

 

lack of skills!

I think that about covers it.

 

Lots of the scum traders are toast and they cast about for an evil one.

 

By gosh, they have a union and we have uhhhhhhhhhhh bupkiss.

 

 

bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Even though i destest them , I must say GO UNIONS!

 

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:03 | 1626245 GiantWang
GiantWang's picture

Just attempting to be realistic here, but doesn't a lot depend on what QE3 looks like?

If it comes in the form of an extension of balance sheet duration, then it seems that no new money will get printed but that banks will be almost forced to lend money, since "risk free" rates will be near zero for all Treasury securities (short-term because of ZIRP, long-term because of Fed purchases).

That means private money would have to flow to the stock markets and that banks would have to extend loans, correct?

I just don't see how an extension of the Fed's balance sheet duration = bigger Wall Street bonuses.  Though I would like to see it and a mass reaction in the form of such bankers being publicly drawn and quartered, hung, or guillotined.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:11 | 1626278 Version 7
Version 7's picture

In the short long run that's what's gonna happen, as they can't be anything else but money junkies blind to all the human suffering, and we on this side are condemned by natural and economic constraints to a future that once was.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:04 | 1626249 YesWeKahn
YesWeKahn's picture

Look at IYR, PSA is at all time high, SPG is very close to it. This certainly is very bulish to the mall owners, office owners and a lot of storage. hahaha

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:06 | 1626259 Bill Lumbergh
Bill Lumbergh's picture

On a different note the DAX is coughing up a lung right now...if that sucker breaks the recent lows around 5,400 watch out below for all major markets.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:18 | 1626317 Version 7
Version 7's picture

and the FTSE is trying to catch up

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:06 | 1626262 Moneyswirth
Moneyswirth's picture

TAX CREDITS BITCHEZ!

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:09 | 1626272 Cookie
Cookie's picture

Too much comment from this guy on ZH

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:09 | 1626275 Moneyswirth
Moneyswirth's picture

"Maybe Obama should address that sort of mentality in his jobs speech next week."

But then again, maybe he wont.  

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:18 | 1626318 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

If the Teleprompters are networked, then they can probably be hacked.  Just saying...

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:21 | 1626338 Moneyswirth
Moneyswirth's picture

Wish someone would pull an Anchorman on his teleprompter

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:16 | 1626303 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Commence low volume melt up...

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:16 | 1626305 laomei
laomei's picture

5/1 is labor day... dunno what 9/2 is, but 9/11 is deathtoamerica day, the best day all year

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:19 | 1626326 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Today is laomei is a Douchenozzle day.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:35 | 1626681 chindit13
chindit13's picture

Personally, I have a soft spot for June 4th.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:16 | 1626306 rubearish10
rubearish10's picture

Here's the confusion to me. Even though a QE3 "look alike" program will be introduced by September 21st, what about the "debt ceiling/budget" mandate by Thanksgiving? What was it, another $1.2T in "trigger" cuts if no deal etc..? How does this all mesh? 

Well, it doesn't. This "doomed chemistry of a plan" from TPTB will end up being another attempt to reflate risk assets with even less supporting fundamentals and needless to say a big NEGATIVE for the general population and its way of life. Which means we're "really" going to be set-up for major failure.

PM's Bitchez!

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:16 | 1626308 RobotTrader
RobotTrader's picture

BAC just filled the gap, today's volume is 1/10th of the huge down day from a couple of weeks ago.

Bears are running out of time.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:21 | 1626339 somethingisrotten
somethingisrotten's picture

A fool with a tool.

Fri, 09/02/2011 - 10:26 | 1626346 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

MomoChaser now reduced to pathetic bottom fisherman of bankrupt banks...still scolding 'bears' all the way down from his 'You better get all-in long here at DUH 12,700 for this huge debt ceiling rally'!

AHH HA HA HA HAAAAA!!

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