"The rats are jumping ship"

[ozymandius]

by gjohnsit

If you watched 60 Minutes the other night, you would have heard New Jersey's Republican governor Chris Christie tell us how we have no choice but to slash wages and benefits and lay off thousands of school teachers, police, and firefighters in every state.

You will also hear lots of economists use the phrase "competitive", as in "the American economy needs to be more competitive in the world". What they really mean is that we need to accept lower wages and a lower standard of living. If we do this then it will be "good for us", that there is economic value in this.

First of all, where do economists get the idea that a lower standard of living is a good thing? That concept was developed at the Chicago School of Economics by Don Patinkin. His theories about unemployment and lower wages leading to a healthy economy was embraced by conservative economist Milton Friedman, and caused a great deal of controversy.

There is also the obvious problem of trying to get the economy "competitive" with the rest of the world by vicious job and wage cuts while the entire rest of the world is also engaging in similar austerity measures.

So why are political and financial leaders around the world preparing to engage in an economic agenda that is certain to lead to disaster?

The thing you need to understand is that it won't lead to disaster for everyone.

When it comes to the fiscal problems with the states and cities, all you hear about are greedy, middle-class school teachers and firefighters. The 60 Minutes interview even called their benefits "golden parachutes", as if they can be compared to the multi-billion dollar Wall Street benefits. What 60 Minutes failed to mention was how Wall Street was extracting $4 Billion from the states through financial wizardry. How many teachers and policemen could be paid with that much money?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/21/930719/-The-rats-are-jumping-ship

The author, gjohnsit, is a long-time regular diarist at DailyKos.

[Demeter]

1. (first rec)

(inside joke)

[bahrbearian]

5. 1st rec , and you didn't have to get up at 5:00 am

[Confusious]

2. The United States shall not be destroyed from the outside

But from the inside. With Christie leading the way with bullshit economic theories.

[CLANG]

22. I wish that fat ass would go back to the doughnut factory and STAY THERE!

[AtheistCrusader]

38. You mock teabaggers for being bigots, but you slag people for being overweight?

Thanks, man. Appreciate it.


All his inhumane policies to bag on him for, and you go for the fat joke. Nice.

[valerief]

42. Aw, save your anger for the Republicans. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

47. No really, if Christie was black and this guy cracked wise about him getting back to the fields

to pick cotton, would you look the other way?

How is this any different? Bigotry is bigotry.

[valerief]

88. If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if. nt

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

101. Being black isn't a choice. eom

[CLANG]

54. Yeah, because he is a big fat ass.

[snagglepuss]

108. Chill. I'm overweight but I don't take that comment as a put down on all who are

overweight. It is an expression, period. Why take offense where none is intended. Sheesh.

[Creative]

51. The governor of New Jersey is going to destroy America...?

I must have missed something. Did he announce that he is running for president in 2012?

[ozymandius]

86. He's just repeating what he has heard elsewhere.

I define 'elsewhere' as his cronies in state and federal offices. The generic Republican nominee in 2012 will embrace these beliefs by default.

[M_A]

94. I have seen

"Christie 2012" bumper stickers here in Iowa.

under "Christie 2012" is the phrase "America: fit in or leave"

2012 race will be a huge circus dominated by tea bagger clowns. we thought the Palin show was bad, it will pale in comparison.

[CrispyQ]

95. This is the most depressing post I've read in ages because it's so true.

Every election it gets worse. And starts earlier. Worse & earlier, worse & earlier. :banghead:

The circus is partly why the non-voters are the biggest 'voting' segment.

[awoke_in_2003]

104. worse & earlier...

just like the christmas holiday.

[geardaddy]

106. I would think Christie has a hard time fitting into anything

other than a tent.

[Uncle Joe]

3. That's a good read, kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread,ozymandius.:thumbsup:

[ozymandius]

8. No problem.

Someone gave me a nudge.

[noise]

4. Agenda based journalism posing as objective

I don't know why anyone would trust the media.

[ozymandius]

6. It's a diary.

Why shouldn't it have a point-of-view?

[noise]

7. I wasn't clear

I am referring to 60 Minutes.

[ozymandius]

9. Got it. Thanks.

[BlueJac]

10. K&R

:thumbsup:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Keynes is shitting in his grave.

[DemReadingDU]

12. Embedded in the diary, is a Michael Hudson video

Why Government is More Afraid of Debt than Depression
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3DsmGvVqiw&feature=player_embedded

[girl gone mad]

25. Michael Hudson is absolutely brilliant.

Wonder if he is still advising Kucinich?

[bbgrunt]

74. very good video!

[BeFree]

13. Knew a county manager who

...saved his county nearly $500,000 by changing the way the county paid off its bonds.

The bankers were not happy.

[DCKit]

18. If the banksters aren't happy, someone's doing something right by Teh Peoples. nt

[HillbillyBob]

60. Oh to see the banksters weep in poverty

nt

[MrMickeysMom]

65. Do tell...

I'd be happy to hear about this, if you could :-)

[BeFree]

73. well, it was simple, really

Instead of paying the high rate, he refinanced to a lower rate. The holders of the previous bonds took a hit. Pretty much what the US is now doing by keeping the rates low. Any bonds or notes are paying a minimum of interest. Imo, it is one reason the bankers are going broke and having to be shored up by the fed.

[MrMickeysMom]

77. Our municipality weighed in on this recently, too.

Refinanced it real low.

Honestly, who'd be interested in the bond market after this?

We're having to make some very difficult decisions, regardless.

[TlalocW]

14. Fine. The rich can lead the way

I believe there was some study that showed that the most a Japanese CEO makes tended to be just 9 times the salary of the lowest paid employee on his staff. I forget the ridiculous number it was for American CEOs. They can lead on this by example.

TlalocW

[Xicano]

21. "I forget the ridiculous number it was for American CEOs"

Basically CEOs make in one day what they pay their labor for the whole year.

[ejpoeta]

35. i watched a movie that had a bunch of facts at the end during the credits.

the ceo's get something like 25x that of their regular employees.

[valerief]

44. No, more like 300 or 400 times the average salary of their ees. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. That was an old movie - that's what the norm was at the start of the 80s.

You remember, that was the era of "Greed is good".

Then, along came Reagan.

[CrispyQ]

96. This cartoon came out shortly after 9/11. I thought it was perfect.

Still is.

[kenfrequed]

28. It was hundreds of times

I don't know how many hundreds of times.

[HillbillyBob]

59. IIRC 400 to 700x the normal worker got

nt

[raouldukelives]

15. k&r

[Kaleko]

16. K & R

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terry in Austin]

19. Good ol' Chicago School

The beating neocon heart. The Chicago School aka "Law and Economics" gave us much of the economic "theory" used by the conservative oligarchy to keep the serfs down on the manor:

...the term "Chicago School" is associated with a particular brand of economics which adheres strictly to Neoclassical price theory in its economic analysis, "free market" libertarianism in much of its policy work
...In recent years, the "Chicago School" has been associated with "economic imperialism", i.e. the application of economic reasoning to areas traditionally considered the prerogative of other fields such as political science, legal theory, history and sociology.

Mostly, this kind of nonsense serves best as a reminder that "Economics is politics in disguise."

[supernova]

20. Is there anyway to strangle this movement

and the disastrous hold it has on our national life?

[xxqqqzme]

109. The 'Chicago School' economics

on steroids = 'disaster capitalism' (And they will manufacture the disaster if one isn't handy)

[Riverman]

114. No, Politics IS Economics, hardly in disguise! Who owns Congress?

[alfredo]

23. You know what happens when the elites in banana republics

get too greedy, get too harsh on the people.

[Caliman73]

63. Yes.

They get bailed out by the US, sent off into "exile" in the South of France, or some Italian villa with the millions they stole from the people.

[alfredo]

71. Let's not let it happen again.

[Caliman73]

79. It would really restore my faith in humanity

If really powerful people who committed crimes would be tried and if convicted, given the consequences that certainly face those of us with fewer resources who run afoul of the law. I am not talking about the rich crooks like Madoff. I am talking about the truly powerful like the Bush's and Cheney's of the world.

That would give me hope.

[alterfurz]

83. relevant quote from Solon, ca. 600 B.C.E.

"Laws are like spiders' webs which, if anything small and weak falls into them they ensnare it, but the large and powerful break through and escape."

Same as it ever was.

[alfredo]

118. Financial crimes are crimes against humanity, and should

be on the same level as war criminals.

[Caliman73]

126. While I do not disagree with you...

I was talking about the actual power of the people who commit crimes. Bush and Cheney are infinitely more powerful than Madoff ever was.

Financial crimes are very serious and should be punished severely, war crimes at the level of Bush and Cheney involve financial crimes, treason, and crimes of violence against sovereign nations as well as the citizens of the US who have been led to their death based on lies.

[alfredo]

127. Financial crimes on the level we saw in 2008 had the potential

to kill many more people than bush and cheney killed with their WOT. Killing with a spreadsheet is just as evil as killing with a predator drone.

[girl gone mad]

24. Sadly, Obama is fully on board with neo-liberal Chicago School claptrap.

There's trouble ahead.

[ThomCat]

45. Yes, that certainly seems to be true.

As much as she bleats and claims otherwise in pretty speeches and loud complaints, his actions say that he is participating in neo-liberal chicago school takeover of the US economy. :(

[RoccoR5955]

26. How the heck is it greed for a Civil Servant to get some benefits

And a Wall Street Thief can rake in millions that was stolen, is a freakin' saint?

This is the Bizarro world, for sure!

[JDPriestly]

27. Most important article I have read recently.

[on point]

29. We could also reduce the 'financial services' overhead to be more competitive

That is the cost borne by society by the useless costs associated with over paid ceos, mgmt, finance players and the like. This amounts to billions, if not perhaps a trillion dollars per year. Eliminating this unproductive 'tax' on society would make us more competitive.


It is not the American worker that is uncompetitive, it is American mgt which is incompetent and uncompetitive. Compare salaries for them in this country, versus salaries for them in major trading partners.

[molly77]

55. You got that right

In Japan, if you are fired, the employer finds you another job. The Japanese say we treat our employees like throw away razors.

Or so I have read.

[Can of Whoop-ass]

92. Better than how

Reagan treated Space Shuttles.

[HillbillyBob]

61. Outsource the banksters. Downsize mismanagement

Im sticking to one liners tonight..

Those last 2 braincells are tired and not in the same orbit.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. I think standards of living ARE going to decrease.

>You will also hear lots of economists use the phrase "competitive", as in "the American economy needs to be
>more competitive in the world". What they really mean is that we need to accept lower wages and a lower
>standard of living. If we do this then it will be "good for us", that there is economic value in this.

We are in the midst of a global equalization of living standards. Just as when you mix a glass of hot water with a glass of cold water, the hotter water is going to get colder, while the cold water is going to get warmer.

Developing nations are...developing! They are going from abject poverty to more modern methods of living. Their pay rates will continue to rise. Their standard of living will continue to rise.

Conversely, as this happens, standards of living and wages in developing nations MUST decline. The only way to stop it is with protectionist maneuvers like tariffs. But this will harm the standard of living of people in developing nations, and they are unlikely to work anyway since there is always another country willing to exploit the cheaper labor and cheaper products that developing nations provide.

This is where government should be coming into play.

We can afford to go back to 1969 wages - IF our cost of living goes back to 1969 prices. You know - back when a house cost $30K and you could buy a new Corvette for $5000.

In order to make this happen, people are going to need help - from their government - with the two largest millstones around their necks - their homes and their cars. Instead of the government injecting cash at the TOP of the system - bailing out the mortgage bankers - they should have injected the cash into the BOTTOM of the system, re-negotiating homeowners' loans, even reducing their principle if necessary. This will have the effect of ALLOWING people in developed nations to take less pay and still maintain their standards of living, all the while becoming more competitive on the global market.

Basically we have a HUGE problem in inequity across the globe, where parts of the world economy are 100 years or more ahead of other parts of the world. This HAS to balance out and it is going to be painful.

[abelenkpe]

34. Reducing principle on homes and cars?

What about the millions of kids saddled with student loan debt that can not be wiped out in bankruptcy?

[Hugin]

37. Do you have any empirical evidence for this hypothesis...

"We are in the midst of a global equalization of living standards. Just as when you mix a glass of hot water with a glass of cold water, the hotter water is going to get colder, while the cold water is going to get warmer."

or is it a gut feel?

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Just a gut feel.

Just a gut feeling based on what I see happening in the world today. The American standard of living seems to me to be decreasing. Employment is worsening, wages are, at best, flat. But developing nations are going gangbusters as sources of cheap labor, and their wages and standards of living are increasing. Take India, for example. They grew as a huge data processing and call center hub, but as wages increased, they started moving to other countries, making their standard of living increase.

The world does not tolerate huge imbalances in equity. Things balance out in the end.

[girl gone mad]

67. Empirical evidence appears to show that the opposite is true.

Change of Heart at WTO? Globalization Doesn’t Help Poor Workers, Report Says
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5047/globalization_doesnt_help_workers_in_developing_world_report/

A new study on employment and globalization released this week finds that, on balance, workers in the developing world have not benefited from globalization. Instead, many are still poor and lack job security and social safety nets.

"Globalization and Informal Jobs in Developing Countries," a joint study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), rebuffs traditional economic thinking that suggests international trade increases quality of employment and living standards. It points to the importance of "Decent Work" objectives and trade reforms designed to be employment-friendly and conducive to job growth.

The high incidence of workers in vulnerable conditions has diminished the benefits of globalization, the report finds, and the number of workers in the informal economy—defined as unregistered businesses not subject to law or regulations— has increased or remained constant.

"Informal" work has accounted for 60 percent of new jobs in developing economies. The incidences range anywhere from 30 percent in Latin American to as much as 80 percent in sub-Saharan and South Asian countries. The report concludes:

Our study shows that the earlier hope, that the effects of growth and international integration would trickle down and automatically eliminate informal employment, is not warranted. Instead, certain types of informal employment arise in reaction to a failure on the part of public authorities to provide proper social security and to bring taxes down to levels compatible with strong work incentives and formal job creation.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5047/globalization_doesnt_help_workers_in_developing_world_report/


It looks more like a case of global exploitation and neo-colonization. Arguments that we are bettering the quality of life for foreign citizens by outsourcing backbreaking factory jobs and entry-level support work without exporting hard fought labor, workplace safety and environmental reforms, strike me as xenophobic.

[Atypical Liberal]

98. I don't draw the same conclusion.

From one of your links:

"It was hoped that this would result in an increase in wages for low-skilled labour or improved working conditions, including by means of an increase in the number of formal sector jobs for low-skilled workers. Evidence suggests, however, that the skill premium has increased both in developed and in emerging economies, making low-skilled workers (relatively) worse off," the report says. The ever shifting dynamic of globalization has caused demand for more highly skilled workers, leaving laborers in poverty or stuck in informal workplaces."


In other words, globalization IS opening up opportunities for skilled labor in other countries. And I know this is true. In India, for example, call centers and data centers provided lots of upward mobility for otherwise low-paid workers with low standards of living. So much so that as their wages rose there was a secondary move of these kinds of jobs OUT of India to other, lower-cost countries, though India's IT sector is still growing.

Also, I used to import and re-sell craft products from a manufacturer in India. These craftsman are benefiting from globalization by having income that they would not otherwise have.

I have no doubt that people with no job skills are going to have a hard go of it in the modern world no matter where they live, and, being underdeveloped countries, GETTING job skills is hard, and the consequences of not having them will be very harsh since there are no social safety nets where they live. In other words, if all you can do is pitch a shovel life is going to continue to be harsh for people in developing nations for some time. They are, after all, still "developing" nations, many comparable to life here in the USA 100+ years ago.

But it is simply inconceivable that all the money we are paying to the workers in developing nations is not improving their lot in life, to the detriment of workers in developed nations.

[mudplanet]

78. It's what NAFTA and GATare all about.

[TBF]

89. Why does this HAVE to balance out - in order to give the bosses a reason to cut everyone's pay?

In your case I would have to say "atypical liberal" is a synonym for conservative. And I believe that Obama sees this just as you do.

[Atypical Liberal]

99. Because historically it always has.

>Why does this HAVE to balance out - in order to give the bosses a reason to cut everyone's pay?

Historically, as areas have developed, wages and standards of living have increased. As people get better things in life they demand more and more better things in life, as do their neighbors.

It happened here in the Southern US. Jobs flooded in from the North to take advantage of the cheaper labor, and consequently the standard of living and wages in the South (and all over the US) rose to comparable levels.

Employers can't just arbitrarily cut pay. There is a point at which people won't do the work.

[AllyCat]

100. While I can agree that the inequity around the world is great,

I think the inequity in our own economy is also to blame. The concentration of wealth at the top makes it so the people who used to help others with donations and time can no longer afford to do what they used to do to help the poor. Not sure, but maybe donations have stayed steady, but it seems that every organization on the radio or elsewhere is saying they have trouble raising funds.

I just don't think corporate donors are helping MORE with their extra money.

Anyway, if someone would wipe out my student loan debt, the mortgage, and the car (or adjust what I owe to 1969 prices) I'd be fine with an adjustment in wages if it helps others.

But I think all it helps is the top 1%

[Hugin]

31. And they're OFF!

In the great human race to the bottom.

('cept for a few... )

[sirthomas66]

32. I'm so mad I'm going to email Bernie Sanders....

[bvar22]

33. Lower Standard of Living for the Working Class IS a Good Thing....

..if you are a member of the Ownership Class (top 1%).
The Leadership of BOTH Political Parties KNOW this!

[ejpoeta]

36. when the middle class is gone they know which side of the divide they will be on.

i try to explain that to my family members that somehow think they are going to be on the other side. they'll be down in the dirt heap with the rest of us. but not our 'representatives'. THEY have a golden parachute that's for sure. they don't have to live with the choices they make for the rest of us.

[Elmore Furth]

39. K&R

[ThomThom]

40. What w need is good paying jobs that support a higher standard of living

This is nonsense and a sell out to corporate interests that really don't understand economics. If we had our own manufacturing base we would not have to compete with the world on wages but we would have to go back to protecting our workers with tariffs. Tariffs are very misunderstood. What happened to the high tech jobs we were going to create we gave them to other countries and now we have high unemployment and people waiting in line for food.

[elehhhhna]

41. Let's compete with EUROPE, not the third world. Damnit.

[ozymandius]

48. That's the plan stated simply.

I interviewed a factory manager at a plant that manufactured eyeglass frames in 1992. Back then, the manager said the pressure was immense from the investors with the government easing the way to flee the United States. He said that tendency then, almost twenty years ago, was to move the industry anyplace where you can pay the workers with a bag of rice.

I just did a quick search of Compuframe, Inc and found National Vision, Inc. One SEC 10-K filing I can find is from 1998. Details begin to emerge as the paperwork lists a Wal-Mart agreement and a Mexico agreement. However, they still operate the manufacturing facility I visited so many years ago. I was not expecting a happy ending to that story.

This company has, however, expanded to China and Mexico.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

43. K&R

[Swagman]

46. how can capitalism survive on low wages ?

Friedman was a fuckwit who Margaret Thatcher followed slavishly. As a result-Britain has a decimated manufacturing base (just like Reagan and the US).

All for short term gain and stuff the future.

[MedicalAdmin]

57. Milton was not a fuckwit. That's an insult to fuckwits and...

Lackwits and village idiots every where.

Basically what Herr Friedman did was figure out what the psychopathic rich wanted to hear and told it to them. If there is a god then Friedman and raygun are being slow roasted on the same spit in hell.

[KoKo]

49. K&R, Ozy for your view on this!

:kick:

[ozymandius]

52. I am in the process of e-mailing the author.

The accolades belong to him. This piece has really moved people in the right way. If you have not sent a message to your elected officials, please do so. It's better to strike while the iron is hot.

[davidthegnome]

50. I'm so angry

I can barely stand it. Why the hell did we give billions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich? If we're going to borrow the money wouldn't it make far, far more sense to invest it in the institutions in our Country that actually need it? Damn. Damn. These fucking assholes are getting away with worse than murder and our elected "democrats" are complicit. There's no denying that the recent massive giveaway to the wealthy could not have been accomplished without democratic support.

Now we'll be told to tighten our belts, buck up. We'll be told that "everyone has to sacrifice" - where is the sacrifice from those who can actually afford to make it? Draining the middle class and the poor further will inevitably lead to far worse circumstances than we face now. Trickle down economics DOES NOT FUCKING WORK.

[BrklynLiberal]

53. Could not bear to watch that POS on 60 Minutes.

[bread_and_roses]

56. K & R (n/t)

[Kat45]

62. The people with these ideas are not viciously cutting their own wages

or eliminating THEIR jobs. I guess the healthy economy is only for them. WTF!

[snappyturtle]

64. Well, I know what I going to do this holiday weekend. Tomorrow

I will print out this article and leave it in the bathroom magazine rack for my repuke relatives to read. One of them is a state senator....I hope he hasn't become so entangled that he can't see the forest for the trees.

My 32 year old, college grad daughter is struggling and was almost screaming that she cannot find a job that pays better than what she was earning for the last ten years. All I can say is, "I know". Sad.

[MrMickeysMom]

66. I'll join you in doing that, snappyturtle...

One of my (municipal) co-council members started down the path the other night (we're in middle of budgets) of,, "Did you see 60 Minutes last night?" I knew from then based on his dislike for some things a la Chicago School of Economics that I would have liked to weighed in, but never caught the episode.

Here's hoping it'll get a good read at your house. I know I'm reading it.

[DeadEyeDyck]

68. K n R

[Rochester]

69. I don't want to be "competitive", thank you very much...

...I want to be protected from competition. Solidarity forever!

[girl gone mad]

75. Then you'll fit right in with our oligarchs.

Hope you were born into money.

[Rochester]

76. I wasn't, but I do have a union.

When more people have a union, and protection from foreign competition, then conditions will improve.

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. definition of competitive: tough love and "market discipline" for working people and the nanny state

for the rich

[xchrom]

80. recommend

[Hannah Bell]

81. kr

[Hannah Bell]

82. currently the financial sector gets about 40 cents of every dollar of profit made in the US.

[Raksha]

102. That's an absolute outrage...FOR WHAT???

Re "currently the financial sector gets about 40 cents of every dollar of profit made in the US."

They are parasites...bloodsuckers. I'd love to see the source of this 40 cents on the dollar figure, not because I doubt it but so I can show it to the Repukes and libertarians on another forum where I posted the lead article. Although the blatant inequities have become so outrageous even the liberterrorists are getting fed up with the banksters. I keep asking them, "WHAT free market? WHAT competition?" They are finally starting to see my point.

[subterranean]

115. Here's a chart.

It shows that the share of corporate profits accruing to the financial sector has been consistently more than 30 percent since 1999, when Glass-Steagall was repealed, reaching a peak of about 45 percent in 2002. The historical average before that was in the range of 15-25 percent.

[ozymandius]

116. Where's the chart?

I'd like to see it, please.

[subterranean]

121. Sorry, I forgot to add the link in the previous post!

Here it is:

http://chartingtheeconomy.com/?p=665

[ozymandius]

122. Thanks!

[HughBeaumont]

84. Funny thing about this "competitiveness" . . .

. . . it's the workers who are forced to participate in this "Race to the Bottom" while the Oligarchs get all the prize money and we get all the fatigue and crumbs. The opulence of the wealthy cannot and MUST NOT stop, no matter what.

Orwell once said "The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact." You gotta wonder whether the class war could very easily mesh in with this description of physical warfare as well.

Capitalism, with the path it now takes, one-sided toward the profit motive only and without care for long-term continuity, fairness or integration, is failing America and holding her hostage.

Both parties seem to be on board with this unfettered crapcake of a system, its thirty-year lack of success be damned. Its sustainability is about as solid as an average person's job security. Its foundation now depends on an outdated plantation format as its blueprint, non-union low-cost labor for its industry and manufacturing and consumer spending with an average wage that cannot keep up with its necessity. Its progress mirrors the rise of the average American wage in real dollars.

R'd and Kicked.

[conspirator]

123. I recommend your reply n/t

[4dsc]

85. 30 years of failed Reaganomics has come home to roost.

The continuation of failed conservative economics is upon us in earnest and our leaders will do nothing about it.

[Roland99]

87. but the repukes and most Dems seem to think more of it will help!

[CLANG]

93. America destroyed by a "B" actor? Only in the movies!!

[lefthandedlefty]

90. Wages are cut all the time by inflation

[Vinca]

91. You would think the low wage thing would be pretty much debunked by now.

The middle class has been stagnant for decades and the economy is in the toilet.

[lonestarnot]

97. So when do they start the throwing of gold into the streets? Bet that would get people off their

asses.

[Riley18]

103. The governor of New Jersey and others like him can only

get away with their bullshit if they can get enough people to believe them. I have no delusions that they will not get enough idiots to follow their logic. Just look at how many fools followed the teabaggers lead. They followed the rich Koch brothers and other wealthy people better than a flock of sheep would follow a shepherd.

[sulphurdunn]

105. I think an economic growth industry

that could employ lots of folks would be guillotine factories, made using American parts and labor, of course. :smoke:

[jotsy]

107. That is 10 minutes of amazing video.

Rec'd this yesterday after a quick skim, wish I could give it five more after checking out the interview. My man used to suggest I was off the proverbial rocker for suggesting that any big picture aim as a deliberate effort. Since the bailout in the days preceding the '08 election cycle, I called it the biggest land and money grab ever then and it continues to grow. What economy we've had it seems is a sieve and the elites hold the rain barrel below it. We lose what flows through while they hold the catch. Shortsightedness clearly not lost on the complacent.

Must see video folks. Thanks ozymandius

[amyrose2712]

110. +1

[Joanne98]

111. The Latvia Option

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x577611

[mommalegga]

112. Well a lower standard of living WOULD help save the planet

So there is a silver lining yes?

A lower standard of living would encourage:

Less car driving,
not having air conditioning,
hang drying your clothes,
a lot less eating, (be healthier, less need for petroleum based farming)
more recycling, (get all those cheap second hand clothes at Goodwill)
Dont bath as much, saving hot water.
Keeping the thermostat down
Keeping the lights off

All these behaviors, and many more, are encouraged by the Save the Planet folks, and what better way to make it happen by reducing incomes forcing people to do it!

Turn the lemon into lemonade!

[county worker]

117. Hell just starve everyone to death. That would save the planet and contribute some fertilizer to the

earth!

Unreal solutions aren't worth the band width!

[EmeraldCityGrl]

119. That's not such a far out idea.

We need to protect our water and food sources. The four or five companies that
market water like Nestle are buying up the water rights in communities all over
America. Some communities have wound up in court fighting these corps.

This video posted today on DU is especially interesting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x537929

The US working in conjunction with Monsanto to strong arm EU countries to use genetically modified seeds.
I'm telling you folks, we need to be vigilant in keeping on top of this. Whoever controls the food, water and debt
controls the world.

[mommalegga]

124. Considering some people

think humanity is the scourage of the planet, maybe some depopulation IS in order!

Imagine the reduction in CO2 emmissions!



(edit to add another smart alecky remark!)

[TBF]

120. You and I may be willing to do that - are the corporate owners ready to do the same? nt

[mommalegga]

125. Of course not!

We need them to live high on the hog so they must continually bleed us little people dry in order to save the planet!

A handle of rich people collectively will put far less CO2 in the air despite their overconsumption compared to the billions of us peons...




(I hope you all think I am saying all this tongue firmly planted in cheek....)

[Plucketeer]

113. DUH!

I've been saying this since the 90s!





GOP PLAN FOR COMPETITIVENESS