| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Freedom to learn | Main | Monday Poem »

April 11, 2011

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs -- Why Nobody, Including Obama, Will Do A Damn Thing About Them (Plus Six Common-Sense Solutions)

by Evert Cilliers aka Adam Ash

Jobs-lost-300x276 What with the Obama-GOP dilly-dallying dance over spending cuts, I feel I'm sort of off-topic in bringing up the more basic problem of US joblessness. I feel a bit like the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who upended the course of Western philosophy by bringing up the very basic problem of our existence (he also screwed Hannah Arendt's considerable brains out, and praised Hitler, but those stories are way off-topic here). Heidegger had a word for our existence: Dasein. This has been mistranslated as Being, a snotnosed Brit coinage not nearly as down-to-earth as Heidegger's German. A better translation would be There-ness. We are here, the universe is here, we have There-ness. Our There-ness is the basic philosophical question. However, having now upended Heideggerian scholarship of the last eighty years, I will get on with the basic American problem:

The non-there-ness of millions of US jobs.

Here are my six common-sense solutions to our unemployment crisis. Of course, because they're down-to-earth and commonsensical, nobody -- including Obama -- will think of applying them; you'll find more sense in a flea's sphincter muscles than in the cerebellums of our government.

1. Shorten the work week. Start with a four-day work week. That means we can get 20% more people into the job market. With around 20% people currently out of work, or working part-time, that solves our jobless problem in one stroke. If that's too big a wrench, cut down daily work hours at firms instead of firing people. That's what they do in Germany, where they don't have our job loss (they do everything better in Europe, but don't get me started).

2. Launch a program of job-sharing. That means you're allowed to share your job with someone else. They do something similar in Germany, too. So if you have a friend out of work, you can have her come in one or two days a week to share your job. Of course, you're also putting her on your salary, so you will be earning less, but at least your friend will be earning something.

3. Slap an import tariff on all Chinese imports. Make it 20%. Suddenly, when Chinese imports become more expensive, American CEOs will have a big road-to-Damascus moment: hey, we can make our stuff here in America instead of in China. There are these people in America, they call themselves American workers, and they can actually work for us and make things. They're like Chinese workers, except they actually live here in our country. Wow.

I know, it's not free trade, but here's one thing that free trade means: 60% of what we import from China is made by American subsidiaries there. So let's agree about something: our livelihoods are more important than free trade, which has freed American corporations to export our jobs. Let's fellate free trade with a mininuke. It's not as if China doesn't put up barriers against our exports to them either, chief among them undervaluing their renminbi.

4. Invest massively in green energy, like China and Denmark have already done (Denmark!? why are those damn Scandinavians always the first to do something sensible?). I mean MASSIVE investments in green energy, as massively and transformatively as the Marshall Plan that put a bombed-into-rubble Germany back on its feet, or the Manhattan Project that gave us the atom bomb, or JFK's NASA that gave us a man on the moon in ten years. Obama already put $27.2 billion towards green energy in his February 2009 stimulus bill. But this was akin to a gnat piddling in a waterfall. A few hundred billions behind green energy: now that could solve our unemployment problem as quick and easy as you can overthrow some Arab dictators.

In fact, Obama got a second chance to do something big about green energy when the BP oil spill came along, and everyone walked around hating oil companies. But he blew that opportunity, too. Obama is a lot like what Abba Eban said about Yasser Arafat: Obama never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

5. Lower the retirement age. Yes, you read me right. The reason we need to lower the retirement age, say to 60 for a start, and maybe 55 later on, is to make room for new young workers to enter the job market. Those new workers coming in -- they'll be paying into Social Security so our retirees can retire early.

I know people are saying we should raise the retirement age to save Social Security, but that's BS. Social Security is fully funded for the next 30 years at least. This is what it says in the flyer that Social Security sends out to Social Security recipients:

“Since the mid-1980s, Social Security has been collecting more in payroll contributions each year than it pays out in retirement, survivor, and disability benefits.

“Surplus funds are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds, which represent an implicit promise by the U.S. government to repay Social Security when and if additional money is needed to cover benefits.

“According to Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security Trust Fund holds more than $2.5 trillion in government bonds and is projected to grow to $3.8 trillion in 2020. This money will be sufficient, along with current tax revenue, to pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2043.”

In other words, Social Security will be fit and healthy right through the big bubble of the boomer generation collecting it. Plus, anytime you need to, you can get more money by raising the annual income limit beyond which you don't pay into Social Security, now pegged at $90,000. Anybody who tells you Social Security is in trouble, is trying to steal your money so they can go play with it. It drives Wall Street absolutely nuts that there are all those trillions they can't get their hands on. Their hands itch worse than Nietzsche's foreskin when he was going crazy with syphilis. It drives retired Wall Street billionaire Peter Peterson so nuts, he's spending a billion dollars of his personal stash to attack Social Security through his foundation and his America Speaks program.

6. Start a public works program a la FDR's WPA (Works Progress Administration), which produced eight million jobs between 1935 and 1943. It worked great then. But today, it depends on Obama. And he ain't no FDR. He likes to read books about Reagan, the poodle of the rich. FDR stood up to the rich. Obama can't: he needs their money to get re-elected. It's odd how everyone in America cops that our crumbling infrastructure needs fixing, while millions are jobless, but no one can muster the wherewithal to solve these two problems at one stroke. Not even Obama, whose job it is. We've got people who need work, we've got infrastructure that needs repair. Put the two together and voila! problem solved. Simple, right? But our common sense and our let's-do-it gumption, and the nous of our President, are flying somewhere weightlessly in space like astronaut's poop floating wherever the heck they deposit their waste.

Instead, Obama is only interested in window-dressing. Sure, he would like for there to be a slight upwards tick in employment in the three or four months before his re-election. But that's next year, not now.

Take Obama's latest bit of window-dressing. It's called his new “Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.” And Obama appointed the CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, to head it up.

This is nothing but a big suck-up to big business for campaign dollars, just like Obama's Catfood Deficit Commission was a big suck-up to our professional debt and inflation worriers.

Appointing Immelt as head of a Jobs Council is a cosmic joke, because Immelt is a master at losing American jobs. That's what he and GE have been doing since the days when CEO Jack Welch started mass firings at GE. Back then Welch was known as Neutron Jack because, like a neutron bomb, he annihilated the people while he left the buildings standing. When Immelt became the CEO in 2000, GE employed 340,000 workers. Today he's cut it down to 304,000 workers, with fewer than half in the US.

1. GE IS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST MANUFACTURER BUT PAYS NO U.S. TAXES

In fact, Immelt has turned GE's operation in the US into a Wall Street-like bank (GE Capital Services) built on a hollowed-out manufacturing base that gets most of its business from the government, and allows GE to use its government manufacturing contracts -- corporate welfare -- to leverage its financial arm into another Wall Street casino. Today, GE is the perfect US corporation: a hideous combination of Wall Street skullduggery, government handouts, and tax avoidance. Its main manufacturing, which makes it the biggest manufacturer on the planet, happens overseas. GE Capital Services is not classified as a bank, but loopholed its way into TARP, and received tens of billions in bailouts, because it owns two small banking institutions in Utah. Along with Exxon, GE didn't pay taxes in 2009. Yet GE is #4 on the Fortune 500. In 2010, GE earned $14 billion -- $5.1 billion from US operations (all that corporate welfare) -- and paid no taxes again. In fact, it claimed a $3.2 billion tax benefit straight out of your pocket.

For Obama to put CEO Immelt of GE in charge of an American jobs commission is a little like God putting Satan in charge of heaven.

But then God doesn't need Satan's money to keep getting himself elected God.

There are some other things Obama could do but won't. Since small start-ups are our sole engines for job creation (cutting taxes sure aren't; the Bush tax cuts for the rich lost jobs), and since most start-ups are done by folks in their 40s, he could invest in work-study programs for older people, which will also help retrain people in their 40s for the new kinds of jobs that new technology creates. He could also make college education free for those who can't afford it, since kids without a college education have a tough time finding jobs (heck, kids with a college education have a tough time, too).

Obvious solutions, don't you think? Here's the thing: all big problems have obvious solutions. You want to solve our big debt problem, for example? Simple. The first obvious thing: raise tax rates on anyone's earnings above a million a year to 50% or 60% (the top tax rate under Eisenhower was 90%, and those were the golden days of capitalism, when there was one earner per household -- the Dad -- and he could own a house, put two kids through college and retire graciously with his wife, all on his one factory job salary). Getting rich people to pay more taxes is a solution that has the country behind it. A 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll asked what the "first step" to balance the budget should be: 60% of Americans said "increase taxes on the wealthy." Or how about this idea Donald Trump had in 1999 -- a onetime net worth tax on individuals and trusts worth upwards of $10 million, affecting less than 1% of Americans. Trump calculated that a 14.25% levy on this net worth would raise $5.7 trillion. In case you feel sorry for the rich, let's not forget that our top 1% got 65% of all household income growth between 2002 and 2007. As far as I'm concerned, they can go trade in their diamond-encrusted dildos for plain rubber ones tomorrow.

The second obvious thing: slap a minimal tax of as little as 0.5% on every financial transaction on Wall Street -- the so-called Tobin Tax.

A third obvious thing: get out of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, shut down our more than 800 military bases all over the world, and slash the Pentagon budget. Years ago, in 1953, President Eisenhower said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

A fourth obvious thing: get private enterprise out of our healthcare system and extend Medicare to everyone, which will cut our healthcare costs in half down to what it is in the rest of the industrialized world. Any two or three of these four things would have us out of debt tomorrow. Obvious, right?

In the same way, a deft combination of two or three of my common-sense solutions could solve our unemployment problem overnight. Obvious, right?

But will any of these solutions happen? Probably not in your lifetime. Why not?

2. AMERICAN BUSINESS DOESN'T NEED AMERICAN WORKERS

Here's the point about our unemployment problem that everyone seems to miss: it's not a problem for anyone except the poor sods who don't have jobs. Like herpes is not a problem for anyone except those herpes carriers still in the market for a bonk.

Nobody in business or government has a stake in solving our unemployment problem. They don't give a damn, and they don't have to give a damn, which is why the unemployment percentage hasn't come down significantly since 2008. Only the people who are jobless give a damn, and they're too poor or too worried or too discouraged or too ashamed or too suicidal to do anything about it.

It's not a problem for business, that's for sure. For them, our unemployment problem is actually a solution. American CEOs love cheap Chinese workers; they hate American workers. Their allegiance is to money, not country. They love exporting our jobs, especially after Clinton generously gave them the Democratic Party seal of approval with NAFTA. They get tax breaks for exporting jobs (yeah, Satan is getting extra roasting spits from the Archangel Gabriel). Our business elite can even get all humanitarian about US joblessness -- as one hedge fund manager told journalist Chrystia Freeland: “If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade.”

So if you've just lost your job, or you know someone who has, console yourself: four foreigners have gained from your loss. Think of your joblessness as an act of charity. Or your contribution to foreign aid. Stop whining and suck it up. You're luckier than an Afghan -- at least some vicious foreign government didn't come and bomb your family to smoking bits of hamburger.

Currently, big business in America is doing so well, they have two trillion bucks in hard cash which they've saved from firing people, with which they could hire people, but for one thing: they like hoarding cash more than they like hiring people. So they will continue to create more joblessness. Forrester Research predicts US employers will move 3.4 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion in wages overseas by 2015. A University of California at Berkeley report finds 14 million US jobs are at risk of being sent offshore, and predicts job losses will exceed the Forrester study's projections.

US unemployment is a gift to US business. The unemployed scare the employed to the point they'll work harder and longer for less. It's what big business always wanted: an employers' paradise.

3. UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR OUR GOVERNMENT

Our government will do nothing about our unemployment problem either. Heck, they created it. Under Clinton, our government supported the export of American jobs. Under Clinton, our government deregulated Wall Street and removed all oversight from derivatives, which enabled Wall Street to cause the Great Recession, which is another way of saying that Clinton gave Wall Street the tools and the elbow room to loot us and make us lose our jobs and our homes. It took the two worst presidents in history, Clinton and Bush Two, working in a double-punch follow-up sequence, to punch out the US economy completely flat on its back, where it now lies out-of-breath and bleeding freely from its bloodied proboscis.

Remember how Obama used to talk about “green shoots” in our economy? Then the White House talked about “the summer of recovery.” Now he's saying our economy is “moving in the right direction.” Soon he'll claim our “economy is on track to come back.” Whatever. I measure our economy by how many Americans have jobs and can afford not to live in a tent city. If you believe in Obama's ongoing spin about our downgoing economy going up, I've got a pound of crap I dropped this morning that I've painted a radiant gold to sell you.

OK, Obama saved maybe a million jobs with his 2009 stimulus bill, and 50,000 jobs with his Detroit takeover, but he hasn't created any NEW jobs.

He could create new jobs with a public works program. The government is already paying out millions in unemployment, so why not use that money to employ people and give them something to do while they're collecting their unemployment, so to speak? Like, for example, fix our crumbling infrastructure, which badly needs doing. Many of the lost jobs are in construction anyway.

But Obama hasn't done that, which means he won't do that. He just doesn't have the imagination or the balls for it. He's no FDR, not even an LBJ. Ever since Nixon, every president we've had has been a screwup, and Obama is one of them.

As for us growing fast enough to add more jobs, we don't even grow fast enough to accommodate young people entering the job market, let alone making up for our lost jobs. The U.S. economy, which is supposed to be rebounding, added 36,000 jobs in January 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 125,000 are needed just to keep up with the increase in the population of Americans wanting and needing work. And 300,000 a month are needed for at least five years straight to get back to the employment we had before the Great Recession. So the 192,000 new jobs created in February is not nearly enough. Plus, they're crappy jobs with crappy pay. The Great Recession's biggest losses were jobs paying $19.05 to $31.40 an hour. And the past year's biggest gains? Jobs paying $9.03 to $12.91 an hour. The good jobs aren't coming back. And even if you have a good job, and do something socially useful -- like teaching -- you're going to get demonized by Faux News, who like to create scapegoats for their Tea Party morons to hate, so the Tea Party idiots won't get pissed with the real culprits milking us dry: our overpaid CEOs.

Moreover, we're in so much debt, we'll never spend enough to create more demand to create more workers to create more stuff for us to demand.

Also, technology has brought us to a point where it not only replaces and reduces labor, but also puts us in a position where we're able to produce much more than we can buy. Capitalism has kind of run itself to ground. Unless workers here and everywhere else get paid more, they can't afford everything they can produce. Unless our elite spreads more of the surplus value around, there will be constant under-demand for our constant over-capacity. (The latterday Marxist scholar David Harvey usefully defines the ongoing capitalist crises as “surplus capital and surplus labor existing side by side with seemingly no way to put them back together.”) And we know our elite are not in the mood to pay us more. That old anti-Semite Henry Ford was the first and last capitalist who realized you have to pay your workers enough for them to be able to buy the products they make. Our owner class has finally gotten so greedy they're undermining their own system. US capitalism is snacking its own tail.

To sum up:

(a) We'll never grow fast enough to outgrow our unemployment problem.

(b) We'll always be in debt.

(c) Big business will keep exporting US jobs.

(d) Technology will keep making more jobs redundant.

(e) Obama won't do a WPA program.

(f) Labor will never be paid enough to buy what they make.

That's our problem in six nutshells. And here's the main reason nobody will do a damn thing about solving any of it.

4. THE BIG REASON WHY NOBODY WILL DO A DAMN THING ABOUT OUR UNEMPLOYMENT

There's one big reason why our big problems won't get solved in any big hurry: America is dumber than the rest of the industrialized world. We the people are dumb, and we our leaders are dumb. From being the smartest nation on earth a mere 30 years ago, we have steadily slid downward in national IQ to the dumbest. It started with Ronald Reagan, our first totally dumbfuck president, and steadily trended downward with the decline of our public schools and the dramatic dumfuckification of our GOP leaders (surely the biggest dumbfucks since Marie Antionette), and then accelerated to warp-speed with the advent of Rupert Murdoch's moronically dumbfuck Fox News for cretinously dumbfuck viewers, guaranteed to make them catatonically dumbfucked, if they started out being merely moronically or cretinously dumbfucked.

We are now the world's leading dumbfucks (let's forget for a moment that we are also the world's leading killers of ourselves and of foreign people, and the world's leaders in making our planet unfit for human habitation; as Sarah Palin likes to say, we are the exceptional nation).

Ours is the nation of five-star blue-ribbon dumbfucks deluxe who've raised a celebrity airhead like Sarah Palin into a position of great political influence, and who've elevated a lunatic motormouth like Michele Bachmann into our actual government, and a deranged raging moonbat like Glenn Beck into the position of our National Teacher-in-Chief, Complete With Blackboard and Pointer, with a classroom of millions of dumbfucks sucking up the Beck Curriculum of numero uno dumbfuckery consisting of Bizarro Dumbfuck Anti-American Liberal Conspiracies with extra credit for Dumbfuck Bigotry 101.

We are so dumb, we are currently letting a nation that still largely consists of damn peasants for chrissake, China, eat our lunch. That's dumber than a baboon who pulls his own entrails out of a bullet wound in his stomach (yeah, they do that).

Our leaders are the dumbest on the planet, too. I wouldn't let most people in Congress run a toilet concession at a high school sports meet, let alone a country. Since we are a nation of dumbfucks, we vote for a Congress of dumbfucks, and are stuck with a majority of dumbfucks on the Supreme Court, too, on whom you can rely to always rule against America and for some special interest.

We also vote for a dumbfuck president, or at any rate, our dumbfuck politicians give us only a choice of dumbfucks to vote for. Now I'm not saying Obama personally is a dumbfuck -- he was smart enough to marry Michelle -- like John McCain is personally a dumbfuck, or Sarah Palin is personally a dumbfuck, or any Republican you care to name is personally a dumbfuck (these days, you've got to be either a dumbfuck or a loon to be a Republican -- the old-style smart Republicans like Rockefeller and Eisenhower and Nixon must be drowning from their own puke in their spinning graves: just imagine what they'd think of today's GOP).

But as a politician, Obama is just like any other politician. In other words, the Compleat Dumbfuck, in his particular case with a vast region of dumbfuckery between his two big sticking-out ears.

Obama is such a dumbfuck, people thought their taxes had gone up under him. He's such a dumbfuck, he forgot to remind the American people that he had cut their taxes, or otherwise -- a case of even bigger dumbfuckery -- he didn't have the smarts to give it to them in a form they could see with their own dumbfuck eyes, like sending them a dumbfuck check, like that dumbfuck President Bush did.

Don't get me started.

Furthermore, dumbfuck Obama let the Republicans take the House away from his party in the midterm elections on two issues, both of which he was too dumbfucked to counter: that (a) his healthcare bill was a “government takeover” and that (b) $500 million would be cut from Medicare, which scared the piss out of older Prevail Diaper-wearing voters, who unlike the young Obama supporters, went to the polls and voted. None of this was true (the $500 million is actually savings that'll put Medicare on a sounder footing), but Obama was too much of a fucking dumbfuck to fight black lies with golden truth. And this is the silvertongued smart fuck who is supposed to be able to orate Cicero into a state of dumbfuckedness, the finest political performer since fucking Disraeli or fucking Hitler or fucking Virgin Queen Elizabeth the fucking First.

OK, now you've got me started.

To lose an election because your opponents lied bigger and better than you could tell the truth ... oy vey is mir across the universe ... that is dumbfuckery of the most utterly utmost dumbfuckery ... solid-gold dumfuckery that follows a timeline of dumbfuckery that outlives the biggest dumbfuckery in the history of the evolution of all dumbfuckery since dumbfuck fishes crawled out on land to become dumbfucking mammals ... on a scale of dumbfuckery more supremely dumbfucked than every instance of planetary dumbfuckery that's ever been committed on Earth in the most globalized sense of dumbfuckery ... stretching forth from our planetary system into an intergalactic dumbfuckery that embraces every galaxy of our expanding universe in a cosmic dumbfuckery to the ends of the twelfth multiverse squared by an infinity of dumbfuckery ... containing and extending and implying and multiplying all and every dumbfuckery since the first split second of dumbfuckery when all that is dumbfucked came into creation with one Big Bang of Be-Dumbfucked Fucked-Dumb Dumbfuckery.

I warned you not to get me started.

So yes, dumbfuckery is definitely at the root of all our problems, but there is another factor -- what one might call the sap in the roots of our dumbfuckery, the actual lifeblood of our dumbfuckery, if you will.

5. BESIDES SMARTS, WE'VE RUN OUT OF GUTS, TOO

We have no guts. That's the other thing wrong with us. It's not as big as the fact that we've evolved into cellularly ingrained dumbfucks from our very genetic code inside out, but it's definitely a factor. It's kind of the gravy on the meat of our dumbfuckery.

We the people, the American people, have no guts. Shame on us. Or maybe the Wisconsin protests are a sign of some vigor in the American corpse. Maybe 100,000 nurses and teachers and firefighters -- the heartland middle-class being punished for the sins of the rich -- will ignite the nation.

You think? Fat chance, people. The American Dream is dead. The land of the free and the brave is the land of the slave and the wuzz. And Obama won't stop the boots of Wall Street and the US Chamber of Commerce and the GOP from kicking us down, down, down, and when we finally hit rock bottom, giving us a few more kicks just for the heck of it. In fact, Obama is incahoots with them. He's actually licking the boots that are kicking us: he's got bail-out king Tim Geithner and ex-bankster Tim Daley working for him. Now maybe Obama is just being realistic, and he needs to get re-elected to protect his healthcare reform bill from going down. Still, everyone should realize that in the eternal stand-off between the middle class vs the rich, where the middle class is always called upon to pay for the disasters created by the rich, Obama has sided with the rich, no matter what you might hope his future agenda will be.

At this point in time, in year three of the Obama administration, we the American people have become the biggest sucker nation ever. We're having the wool pulled over eyes in five shades of midnight blue. We're being snookered and conned and diddled like nobody's business. We're being played like some latter-day Chopin is tickling our accommodating ivories to the tune of "Que sera sera, whatever will be, will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera sera, what will be, will be."

Somewhere, someone is laughing, and that someone is not us. My fellow mindless and gutless and jobless Americans, the rich have won the class war, and the rest of us, aka we the dumbfucks, including you, dear reader ... you lost.

Posted by Evert Cilliers at 12:35 AM | Permalink

Comments

I hate to say this, but it is less tiring to have to ignore Chris Hedges's stylistic problems than it is to have to read your crude 'deliberately offensive' ranting.

The first part of your post (after an opening that contains some pointless sexism by way of casting Arendt as a passive recipient of Heidegger's 'attention') is overly long, and (pointlessly) naïve. Then there follows a section in which you present 'reasons why nothing is happening' (i.e. corruption of the political process) in a fairly decent, if not groundbreaking manner. But after you've done that, you suddenly decide (after already scaring away most of your readers with section 1) to pretty much repeat every point made previously in a cruder and more obnoxious fashion.
I am curious what motivated you to do so: what audience are you trying to reach (by posting this on 3qd)?

Posted by: Foppe | Apr 11, 2011 3:41:21 AM

I liked the repetition. And the crudity. Sorta like a blues number that feels so bad it's good.

Posted by: berick | Apr 11, 2011 4:47:17 AM

Dear Mr/Ms Foppe:

You are the audience I'm trying to reach, and apparently I succeeded, because you read the whole thing, didn't you?

I love how you critique how I write -- my "deliberately offensive" ranting -- in order to avoid writing about the points I am trying to make.

So let's hear it from you -- are you a fellow progressive offended by my style? Or an actual Tea Party apologist for the banksters offended by what I think of your politics?

Evert aka Adam

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 11, 2011 6:51:01 AM

Wow! Economic illiteracy at 3QD. Very disappointing. Shorter work week, job sharing, tariffs...really!?

Posted by: Bill | Apr 11, 2011 7:21:31 AM

Evert--

The biggest problem with your article is the one you cite right at the top: the common-sense problem.

My father was a poor working man with little education but a lot of common sense; but he's as dead as common sense is in America. Given many of the things you've said here, especially about "The big reason why nobody will do a damn thing about unemployment, " it would be as impossible to raise common sense from the dead as it would be to raise my father.

Some equate populism with common sense, but if Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin are populists (as some media bobble-heads say), populism, like a walking corpse in "Night of the Living dead," is not dead enough and should be lying under the same headstone as common sense.

If the prevailing mode of thought in the USA is a tsunami, common sense is Kesennuma.

(Coincidentally the poem I posted today contains a similar sense of despair about... you guessed it: common sense.)

Commonsensically yours,
Jim

Posted by: jim | Apr 11, 2011 7:49:16 AM

The fact that reforms as basic as the ones I suggest -- the 5-day work week we have was established because unions fought for it, not because of some iron law of economics -- can be called economic illiteracy by 3QD reader Bill is exactly what disturbs me about the Milton Friedmanesque orthodoxy that obtains in our dear land. If you're going to be patronizing and snarky, Mr Bill, start looking at what ails America from a perspective wider and higher than the one you so arrogantly and proudly display. How do you propose to solve the problem of our jobless recovery? With more tax cuts?

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 11, 2011 7:58:41 AM

Jim:

I have to believe that enough Americans have enough common sense so that when Wall Street blows us up again -- say in the next five to ten years -- this common sense will spread like a benevolent Blob and save us from ourselves.

Already there is agitation for various states to have their own state banks like North Dakota has, and avoid being blindsided by Wall Street. Then there is the progressive state of Vermont, to whom other states might start looking for guidance when they do things that work better for them than anything the Federal government does for us.

In other words, we have little pockets of sanity in these United States of Dementia, and their example could prevail. As dead as common sense might appear to be now, it may rear its pretty head in the future. I'm hoping. I'm always hoping. I wish I had had a Dad like yours.

Yours in despair and hope,
Evert aka Adam

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 11, 2011 8:16:47 AM

The Bush tax cuts, judged by fitness to their proffered purpose, failed. Remedy in a word: clawback.

Posted by: black dog barking | Apr 11, 2011 8:45:43 AM

I am usually rather critical of mainstream economics, so it is refreshing to be reminded every so often why we need it.

e.g. Economics is not a race or a competition. This relates to the fallacy of equating business and economics - the real reason why Immelt is a mistake - an ideology you also seem to buy into. In any case America is still the biggest manufacturer in the world. It's just very efficient at it (the same with its modern agriculture) so there aren't as many jobs there as there used to be. So what?

There is no fixed number of jobs. You are mistaking short term lags for actual causal mechanisms. According to your logic, women should never have been allowed into the workforce. In general it appears that logic and arithmetic is not the strong suit of your common sense economics.

All economic theories are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are all equally right. Marxism is just about the most wrong, which is why it is so much more likely to survive in sociology and literature departments, and apparently 3QD, than academic or government economics. Thank God.

Posted by: Philosopher's Beard | Apr 11, 2011 9:25:57 AM

Just want to say that the previous "Bill" is not me!

Evert, I enjoy your raucous style. Keep it up. I also like the fact that you offer possible solutions to the problem.

Let me just say that I am not so sure economic protectionism is the answer. I am by no means rich, but I have benefited significantly from the global movement of capital and goods. In many ways, globalisation has helped as much as it has hurt and we need to be careful to condemn all that it has brought. We have all benefited in ways subtle and not so subtle.

Yes, capital flight and job loss are problems that need to be tackled if the USA and Europe are to avoid slow economic decline. The thing I think is missing from globalisation is the free movement of labor. Capital and goods have been freed to a large extent from the restrictions of the past (altho' tariffs still exist in the form of import duties, etc... just ask anyone who transfers goods over borders). Labor, on the other hand, is still severely restricted. Ironically, this has brought about a huge black market in people trafficking and exploitation of "illegal" workers that applies severe downward pressure on wages in certain sectors (manufacturing, cleaning services, agricultural labour, etc.)

The problem is extremely complex and does not deserve solutions like economic nationalism. Part of what is needed is a recognition that everybody needs to have access to the benefits of the extra wealth generated by these shifts in economic activity. The Europeans have produced some semblance of this by their economic union and social democratic model, but it is far from perfect. (Consider the abysmal treatment of migrant agricultural workers in southern Italy.)

I didn't quite get your reference to Heidegger, but then, I am not a philosopher.

Cheers!

Posted by: Bill | Apr 11, 2011 9:38:34 AM

“…so there aren't as many jobs there as there used to be. So what?”
Interesting— spoken by a true mechanist I assume.

So what if one tire blows on an eighteen wheeler, you’ve got seventeen more to handle the load. It’s just a freaking truck after all! Compassion and empathy never enter the argument. Happiness and food are meaningless when you’re referring to a wheel. This is why the Declaration was not written for the freedom and well-being of tires.

But enter mankind (or animal-kind) and circumstances are transformed.

“America is still the biggest manufacturer in the world. It's just very efficient at it…”

For the sake of economic efficiency we can systematically reduce the need for wheels on vehicles as technology improves. With lighter and stronger materials we may be able to go from eighteen down to four then, when we’ve worked out an economical hovercraft, zero. No use for wheels at all! No fault no harm, it’s only wheels becoming obsolete.

And ... For the sake of efficiency we can systematically reduce the need for labor in the economy as technology improves. . .

Ruductio ad absurdum: pretty soon one phenomenally wealthy family is selling product produced with no labor to itself!

Mechanism may work mechanistically, but when human souls and spirits are involved it’s a different game. If it’s not, what’s the point? When does economics consider this?

This is where common sense comes in.

Posted by: jim | Apr 11, 2011 10:27:35 AM

My comment was for Phil. Beard.

Also a correction:
"This is why the Declaration of Independence was not written for the freedom and well-being of tires.

Posted by: jim | Apr 11, 2011 10:30:29 AM

Yo Beard baby:

I'm not a Marxist. As far as any belief system goes, I think the Scandinavians get stuff the most right. They've got high taxes, i.e. the best social welfare systems in the world, and they still rank as among the most economically competitively countries, what with Ikea, Nokia and Denmark's dominance in green tech.

You write: "In any case America is still the biggest manufacturer in the world. It's just very efficient at it (the same with its modern agriculture) so there aren't as many jobs there as there used to be. So what?"

Indeed. So what that agribusiness is ruining the environment with chemical fertilizers, and that factory farming is so cruel to animals, its proponents ought to be jailed. So what that efficiency trumps empathy. So what that there are ways of doing it, like they do in Scandinavia, that are just as efficient but somewhat more humane.

So what, indeed. I wish you and I weren't living in the same country, dude. From my POV, your "so what" attitude is exactly what's wrong with our ruling elite.

Evert aka Adam

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 11, 2011 11:01:07 AM

Jim. Wait, how come I'm the mechanistic one when you're the one bemoaning the loss of US manufacturing jobs. Apparently other jobs aren't as real?

Romantics always seem to be against whatever economics says because economists do the boring 'inhuman' counting logical thinking thing. Back in the 19th century manufacturing was destroying society. Now that economists say "things" are not what's important you suddenly like it again.

I appreciate that prices are not the only important thing - there is a value and self-respect to gainful employment that is hard to fit into economic models. But actually economists have a better record of respecting the rights of individuals, including their right to eat (prices) than romantics(read your Adam Smith e.g. against slavery). It was after all Thomas Carlyle who first called economics the "Dismal Science", in a vicious racist diatribe against the campaign for abolition of slavery that would replace the natural order with the market, if the liberal economists got their way ("Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question").

Posted by: Philosopher's Beard | Apr 11, 2011 11:19:08 AM

Evert,

I think it is funny that you call me "arrogant" while you propose so-called "solutions" to complex issues and then label them as "common sense." Economic processes are complex and don't fit so neatly into your "common sense" (i.e., simplistic) view of the world.

Your original blog post is so full of bad economics and logical fallacies that it reminds me of reading arguments by creationists. I mean, arguing for restrictive tariffs like you do is akin to saying "if we evolved from monkeys then why are their still monkeys." This type of ignorance can't be fixed in a blog thread.

Posted by: Bill | Apr 11, 2011 11:55:37 AM

Thanks Evert. I always enjoy your articles.

The problem boils down to a severe imbalance in power between capital and labor. This imbalance is the natural tendency of capitalism. Scandinavian countries have people smart enough to realize this and deliberately devise ways to reduce the power of capital and increase the power of labor, thereby stabilizing the capitalist system. It seems that in this country, labor is too stupid to organize and demand more, while capital is too stupid to make concessions that would be in their long term interest. If the imbalance becomes too severe, the increase in suffering and perception of unfairness will lead to a revolution, for which the elite have already prepared the "security state". Think airport security times a hundred. Anyway, thanks Evert. There is more truth in your article than in ten years worth of the Wall Street Journal.

Posted by: J.Hawkins | Apr 11, 2011 12:18:36 PM

Bill:
You write: "Economic processes are complex and don't fit so neatly into your 'common sense' (i.e., simplistic) view of the world."

I've got to tell you, this is the typical reaction I always get from folks who've swallowed the elite's Kool-Aid, whether it comes via Milton Friedman or the Mises Institute.

You also write: "I mean, arguing for restrictive tariffs like you do is akin to saying 'if we evolved from monkeys then why are their still monkeys.'

I love that, it's very funny, so touche and all that. BUT: What the hell is wrong with arguing for economic nationalism? It so happens, for example, that a few countries who refused to take the neo-liberal medicine of the World Bank and other institutions (probably much admired by you) -- i.e. economic nationalists -- ended up doing better than those who did.

I refuse to bow down to any orthodoxy, especially that espoused by economics, which has never been less or more than some ideology hiding behind its own particular massage of its own numbers. You're probably less ignorant than me, but at the same time way more ignorant of your own ignorance than me. Plus you seem unable to state your own ideology. How about letting us hear it?

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 11, 2011 12:47:24 PM

'Economics' and 'science' don't even belong in the same sentence. The vast majority of the field is filled with ideological hacks that prop up the oligarchy with self-serving lies.

Posted by: Fill | Apr 11, 2011 1:29:58 PM

Fabulous rant! It cleared my sinuses, eardrums and a filthy logjam of mental debris.

Posted by: janjamm | Apr 11, 2011 3:03:00 PM

I know you guys own this website and post whatever you want, but if there is a vote, I vote to no longer have this a.k.a adam ash posted here.

His rantings are clueless; he is missing the most basic points regarding our problems.

If it is meant to be comedy, it is just not that funny.

Posted by: odysseus14 | Apr 11, 2011 4:59:15 PM

Odysseus14:
Question: where do you stand on the ideological spectrum? On the left or the right?
Just asking.

From that clueless ranter aka Adam Ash who is missing the most basic points regarding our problems, and whose comedy is just not that funny.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 11, 2011 5:25:55 PM

This post is not up to the standards of 3QD in my humble opinion.

Regarding the common sense solutions:

1.) Google "lump of labour fallacy"
2.) Google "lump of labour fallacy"
3.) Import tariffs are always and everywhere corporatist. Are you sure which side you're on?
4.) Agree, but not because it would create lots of jobs in the short run, b/c it wouldn't.
5.) Google "lump of labour fallacy"
6.) Agree

There's many reasons to be upset at the state of things in Amurrka these days, but your anger isn't channeled productively here. Brevity focuses the mind; this is self-indulgent on far too many levels. Post hoc fallacies and general ranting don't help the progessive cause, compadre.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 11, 2011 6:02:24 PM

Hi evert

odysseus14 here. thanks for asking. It seems you might be preparing a response to my post? Let's all just have a good time with my suggestion: that you Kraft (spelling intentional, i.e. "cheesy") a response for 1 of each? Or choose any multiples of the infinite rainbow spectrum of ideology.

but if you're short of time, like if your auto-complete isn't working so you must type out "dumbfuck", let's just go with fire-breathing liberal.

Another possiblity would be writing what You would Actually Do if YOU were president of the US? It's easy to criticize someone, but really what could you do to get a better solution? I put this one forth because recently I've been entering into a lot of conversations with people saying things like "the people must rise up" and other similar things. My parameters to any response you might write would include what I tell them - that the neo-conservative Right have "the people rising up" down pat. They have superb control of the media; they are tremendously powerful and effective; they know how to influence the minds and now votes of millions of people; and if the "people rising up" were ever successful in the past, they are trying damn hard to make sure that never happens again. They have many many many successful weapons. Instead, I encourage the person saying those things to think of something new; that a new strategy must be derived and applied.

So two possible clues. One, is Odysseus himself. WWOD? What would Odysseus do? Another source, it's kind of a long read, but the point is made: Vinland by Thomas Pynchon. Pynchon describes for us how the movements in the '60s were beheaded and castrated by the Reagan crowd in by the time the '80s rolled around.

Posted by: odysseus14 | Apr 11, 2011 6:32:16 PM

Oh, and Evert, re-reading some of the comments above, this is regarding your to Bill:

You also write: "I mean, arguing for restrictive tariffs like you do is akin to saying 'if we evolved from monkeys then why are their still monkeys.'

Small typo. We did not evolve from Monkeys. We evolved from Apes. And the fact is, we ARE STILL APES!

Posted by: odysseus14 | Apr 11, 2011 6:41:11 PM

Aha my fellow progressives Patrick & Odysseus14:

Thank God I don't have to fight with you over where we stand.

So what are we arguing about? Tactics? Or you just don't like my over-the-top style? My self-indulgence? The length of my rants? Etcetera? My dear Patrick, so I'm not helping the progressive cause, darling? Let me ask you this: Who are you to decide what does and doesn't help the progressive cause? I didn't realize we all have to pass the Patrick test for whatever furthers the progressive cause before any of us can write two sentences to further the progressive cause. Listen, there's many that don't like what I do, and somes that do. Many of those who don't, don't have much of a sense of humor, in my humble opinion.

Regarding my "common sense" solutions that you regard as "lump of labor" fallacies. If Germany can cut down on work hours instead of firing people, WHICH IS WHAT THEY DO THERE, then by my lights they're being very common sensical, and I wish we were that common sensical. I know my common sensical suggestions are unrealistic given the context of today's US politics, but that doesn't make them un-common sensical, in my humble opinion. Patrick, my compadre, you're just not thinking very far out of the box, in my humble opinion.

Odysseus14, what would I do if I were President? Instead of appointing Geithner and Summers as my economic team, I would've had Joseph Stiglitz and Simon Johnson as my economic team. And then we would've pulled an Obama Detroit on Wall Street: cleaned out the whole place, and sold smaller banks back to the private sector after getting rid of the top brass at Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, etc. Wall Street would've screamed blue murder, but my re-election would've been assured, because I would've been forever hailed as the FDR of the 21st century who once and for all tamed Wall Street.

Sure, "the neo-conservative Right have 'the people rising up' down pat," but unlike you, Odysseus14, I refuse to give up just because I think my analysis of our pickle is so brilliant that I'm just happy to pour cold water on people's hopes.

The fact of the matter is that Obama wasted at least six opportunities for progressive action, and never took them because he's probably a Blue Dog instead of an actual progressive. So we have to work at getting a true progressive in there next time Wall Street blows us up again.

And I think it can happen. You don't, but I do. That's where you and I part ways, Odysseus14. You've given up, and I haven't.

Love you guys, anyways. At least we're on the same side, even though, as true lefties, we prefer bashing each other to going after the bastards on the right.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 11, 2011 7:31:46 PM

And to flog what has become bereft of humor further, to whom do these moribund monkeys belong anyways?

Posted by: Erich | Apr 11, 2011 9:08:35 PM

Evert, I believe France is also in the habit of job sharing, so more points in that column.

Meanwhile, it's a delight that someone had the balls to state the bleeding obvious.

Now if only someone could flick the Australian dumbfuckery back to the Stone Age, we could start working on all our own issues.

Posted by: Georgia Claire | Apr 11, 2011 9:28:46 PM

Evert, this rant is as crazy and offensive as anything that the far right has to offer.

I totally agree that taxes on the rich are far too light and that we need to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, but these and the other good points you make are surrounded by un-researched economic smegma and buried in crude statements that simply aren't funny.

The reason why Scandanavians do well is because they have reason and enlightened self-interest on their side. Your style of discourse, as shown in these comments, just results in shouting matches where no one wins.

I know you mean well, but by publishing something like this you are doing your cause a disservice. A lot of what the right believes is based on their own irrational prejudices, which can only be beaten through patient and rational dialogue. If you sink to their level and go on your own unsound rants then you have lost the high ground.

Posted by: Hydrogen_Bond | Apr 11, 2011 11:00:40 PM

Georgia,
Thank you for your comment. I used to get all apologetic when people complained about my rude crudeness, but this time around I decided to get all combative.

I mean, Hydrogen_Bond calls me to task for un-researched economic smegma; meanwhile I research my little butt off. And he says I sink to the far-right's level and lose the high ground. I guess he prefers that I be all la-di-da academic dainty rational discoursey, as befits anyone who writes for 3QD.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. I wonder what he would've thought about Hunter S. Thompson's rants against Nixon which I recall with great fondness for their no-punches-pulled, rude and crude putdowns.

I wrote and rewrote this rant many times for maximum LOL effect, and some of you obviously got a laugh out of it. Others, like Hydrogen_Bond, just don't get how funny a rant can be. Well, what am I to do? Drop the rollicking style and become just another academic bore, to which the likes of Hydrogen_Bond and Patrick can give a dainty nod to ... or keep going pedal-to-the-metal full-on damn-the-torpedoes?

It seems only some 3QD readers understand that I'm trying to entertain as well as inform. And some of them find my crudeness funny, and others are offended by it.

I try to console myself by saying to myself: well, the folks who are offended hail from a long line of Puritans, a well-defined strain in the American polity.

But then that's probably very rude of me, too. Mind you, I would recommend to all the dainty folks out there to check The Rude Pundit's blog -- now that guy out-rude's me by a mile.

Otherwise, OK, I'm real sorry I offended you. And also, I'm real sorry I'll probably do it again quite soon.

Or maybe not: could be I've shot my wad this time with my favorite rant word "dumbfuckery." Maybe there'll come a time when I've run out of obscenities, and will have to revert to the academic style so beloved by the local Puritans.

Stay tuned.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 12, 2011 12:00:42 AM

Love it every time Evert,

The best part is outing the armchair liberals in the comments section.

to them,
It's Art, dumbfux!

Posted by: jmichael | Apr 12, 2011 12:54:30 AM

Evert, well done for at least thinking of solutions. Even if some of those you offer are silly, you have got much more debate going on the topic than most 3QD posts.

Rant on! But do try to find some synonyms for dumbfuck, which is funny once or twice but useless as a mantra.

Posted by: Mike Cope | Apr 12, 2011 3:47:00 AM

Beard--

I said "mechanist" because you apparently come at economic issues as if the effects of how money moves and fortunes captured applied to hapless cogs. You argue as if the "logic" of economics is mechanistically pristine rather than dirty as greed.

Evert is apparently mad as hell and is not going to take it any more.

Since his ideas will be drowned-out and rejected out of hand by those who already have fortunes (and control of microphones), he has to yell a little. If it helps wake up the walking dead, he's doing a service to all who'd rather not be hapless cogs. I doubt Everts hopes to persuade the Koch Brothers, for instance.

Posted by: jim | Apr 12, 2011 8:10:21 AM

"Evert is apparently mad as hell and is not going to take it any more."

Damn right, Jim. And with this --

"Since his ideas will be drowned-out and rejected out of hand by those who already have fortunes (and control of microphones), he has to yell a little. If it helps wake up the walking dead, he's doing a service to all who'd rather not be hapless cogs. I doubt Everts hopes to persuade the Koch Brothers, for instance."

-- you've given me my raison d'etre for ranting: not to persuade the banksters & their cronies to change their ways, but to wake up the dead. Thanks mightily for this Jim. We'll be ranting on sometime soon again, even though we may have to do it sans any mention of "dumbfuckery."

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 12, 2011 9:37:24 AM

"1. Shorten the work week. Start with a four-day work week. That means we can get 20% more people into the job market."

Hear! Hear!

Shortening the work week has been the traditional way of sharing the fruits of labor-saving technology. Another round is long overdue.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 1:24:23 PM

"I hate to say this, but it is less tiring to have to ignore Chris Hedges's stylistic problems than it is to have to read your crude 'deliberately offensive' ranting."

Personally, I loved it! A vicarious substitute for shooting our leaders.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 1:56:19 PM

Philosopher's Beard: "There is no fixed number of jobs. You are mistaking short term lags for actual causal mechanisms."

Right. We could all be slaving 12-to-14 hours a day (women and children included) like we did back in the good old days of the Gilded Age!

Or, come to think of it, like they do in China even as we speak.

And if you don't think workers here and in China compete with each other for wages in the new global economy, you are dumbfuckery fool.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 2:10:26 PM

Evert,

What I'm saying is this:

I don't believe you.

You replied that you would do this and you would do that and you would appoint this person and that person.

I simply don't believe you would have been able to; Obama is the guy there right now. No matter what his intentions were when he was a candidate, the headwinds and buffeting of reality would have just as certainly thrown you off course like a ship trying to reach a destination through overwhelming seas and storms. You would quickly get into just-gotta-survive mode.

Candidate Evert Cilliers would most certainly become President Adam Ash - a completely different, even unrecognizable transmutation of what you were and who you were when you started.

And if we could view parallel universes, one where some kid named Barry Obama becomes President Barack Obama and Evert Cilliers becomes President Adam Ash, I gotta tell ya my money is on Obama. I think he is doing much better than you could ever prove to. And I think if you honestly think about that, you'd see that I am right. If you think I am wrong, make it so I have an opportunity to vote for you in 2012 and/or 2016.

So you list Obama's 6 mistakes. At least we're no longer living with the consequences of the actions of the former Bush administration.

So that is what I find disappointing about your writings - much ado, about nothing.

I am intellectually disappointed by things like this: like people who claim that Bill Shakespeare really didn't write his plays. What nonsense! Born from jealousy. Perhaps Mozart's father wrote all of his son's work because surely a child could not create such music. Like bashing Barack Obama, when you haven't tried being President yet yourself.

I'm annoyed that the ranting is all bashing. That poor guy needs SOMEBODY to help him out; he's got enough people trying to destroy his presidency 24/7, and as I wrote before, those forces are quite powerful and masterfully effective.

We need a whole new approach. I do not yet know what that is, but I have an initial solution to each of our problems:

Are you a US citizen? Were you born here (or were you born to a US citizen parent? I am not a birther. for gods sake McCain was born in panama!) Are you at least 35? In other words do you fit the basic constitutional requirements that makes it possible that if the dice should so roll, you could legally be elected president?

Then I propose we start by getting into the right mind set. If you could get elected, that means that you, and everyone else with the similar basics, ARE already "president of the united states". We all are presidents. we don't have kings or royalty. Yes, we GRANT the collected power of every president into the single OFFICE - and we elect someone to hold the job, but we are all presidents.

Once we all realize that, then we can start. Each of us already is president. that is how things really are.

If you can NOT be president, then please still feel welcome to enter into the political discussion.

We've only got Obama for 8 years max. I wish people would get out of his way so he could help the country.

Another example. It has been speculated that one reason why JFK was assassinated was because it became apparent that upon winning re-election in 1964, he would move to end the viet nam war. At the time, in the early 60s, most of the country was FOR the war.

Look again at the forces arrayed vs Obama. Look again to see if you, or any of us, could really be doing any better. Consider the additional power that would occur to him if he wins re-election - that is what JFK was waiting for. Then consider the power granted to the other side if he loses re-election.

So if your power is through your writing, can that be improved?

Posted by: odysseus14 | Apr 12, 2011 2:14:44 PM

I thought this post was satirical at first, but it seems to be quite serious.

I think the author's Europhilia might have gotten the best of his usual sharp analysis.

For example, stastics with identical names, such as "unemployment rate," don't necessarily mesure the same thing.

Take Germany, a country the author seems particularly enamored with. At the end of 2010, the German unemployment rate was about 7.6%, while the US's was around 9.3%. leading to the conclusion that the Germany's employment policy was much better than the US's.

However, these unemployment rates do not measure from identical variables. A far better measure is overall labor force participation, that is, how many people as a % of the working-age population have jobs.

In 2010, a mere 64.7% of the US working-age population had jobs (http://finance-data.com/series/USALFPRNA). So Germany, with its vastly superior employment policy and low unemployment rate had what percentage? 75%? 80%?

Nope. Try 58%, a much lower rate than the US's. (http://finance-data.com/series/DEULFPRNA).

Posted by: Joe Y | Apr 12, 2011 2:15:02 PM

"Let me just say that I am not so sure economic protectionism is the answer. I am by no means rich, but I have benefited significantly from the global movement of capital and goods."

Yeah, you selfish, ego-centric bodiless brain!

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 2:16:57 PM

If Germany had the US labor rate particpation, they would be in a state of full employment.

If the US had Germany's labor rate participation, it would be in a massive depression.

I'll take one other one, the "Shorten the work week" idea. (This isn't satire, right?) First of all, in order for 20% of the work newly available to be done, there has to be an equivalent 20% drop in productivity per employee, which means a 20% decrease in salary per employee. This loss with employee income combines with a large increase in inflation brought on by the tariff, as well as a massive increase in social security taxes to pay for the new retirees, who have also taken a major loss in income when they lose thier jobs to go on Social Security.

Posted by: Joe Y | Apr 12, 2011 2:23:09 PM

"The thing I think is missing from globalisation is the free movement of labor."

The Vandals and Goths had the same point of view. The one thing missing from Evert Cillier's rant is the issue of immigration. As a better writer than I recently put it:

"Ultimately the liberal left will have to choose between equality and diversity. Can you, thoughtful reader, think of many countries that truly have both? A quick glance at Russia (the world’s most diverse country, and increasingly its most unequal, though this is entirely the fault of its proto-fascist elite), the US, Brazil, Japan and Scandinavia suggests an inverse link between the two, and between levels of immigration and the extent to which the state is able or willing to protect its citizens from the caprices of the free market."

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 2:27:30 PM

"I mean, arguing for restrictive tariffs like you do is akin to saying 'if we evolved from monkeys then why are their still monkeys?'."

Like that monkey Alexander Hamilton?

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 2:37:33 PM

"The problem is extremely complex and does not deserve solutions like economic nationalism."

Yeah, like maximizing the general welfare of the citizenry is a big no no.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 2:46:20 PM

Cillier says, "I refuse to bow down to any orthodoxy, especially that espoused by economics . . ."

Or as someone recently observed: "Economics never has and never will produce an iota of knowledge that is both true and non-obvious to laymen. "

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 2:49:05 PM

"'Economics' and 'science' don't even belong in the same sentence."

Actually there is a kind of moral logic to economics in its most fundamental principals -- except academic economists have been trained not to use it.

Issues of income distribution, for example, are off the table at grad schools all across the country according to a recent survey. They won't -- and don't -- entertain the proposition that a dollar is worth more to a poor man than a rich one all else being equal.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 2:57:18 PM

"I know you guys own this website and post whatever you want, but if there is a vote, I vote to no longer have this a.k.a adam ash posted here."

Right. Nobody cares. Just look at how few comments there are. And how "superior" the minds of those who think Cillier doesn't know what he is talking about. I suppose they think they know Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression? (That's a trick question by the way, see Krugman for details.)

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 3:08:49 PM

According to Patrick: "This post is not up to the standards of 3QD in my humble opinion.

Regarding the common sense solutions:

1.) Google "lump of labour fallacy""

I've got a better idea Patrick. Google "Protection and Real Wages" by Samuelson and Stolper and see if you can get your fat head around it.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 3:13:11 PM

I always loved that "lump of labor fallacy" trope. The "lump" part especially. You can almost hear the lash against the flesh.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 3:21:09 PM

Odysseous 14: "I've been entering into a lot of conversations with people saying things like "the people must rise up" . . . I encourage the person saying those things to think of something new. . ."

Here's something new: Let the people rise up. Flash mob the hell out of our political elites.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 12, 2011 3:28:02 PM

Odysseus,
Here's where I'm coming from. The Tea Party has driven the GOP to the hard right. It is the job of the progressive left to see if they can drive the Dems to the left. That's what we should be doing. We haven't done it yet, but I think it can be done.

As for Wall Street melting us down: maybe you don't remember, but Stiglitz and Johnson both said nationalize the banks, and Obama had a clear opportunity to do that, but then he went and appointed Geithner and Summers to his team. That was not him being buffeted -- he picked the side of Wall Street against the American people, when there were Nobel Prize winners giving different counsel. Jeez, he ignored Volcker until he got freaked by the loss of the safe Mass seat.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party needs to organize itself into a hardcore scary block who primary Blue Dog and other let's-make-a-deal folks like Obama. This is where Firedoglake, MoveOn and other forces on the left can make a difference. It's going to be a long process, but the sooner we start, the better for the country. Sure, Obama is better for the country than any Republican, but a Howard Dean or a Russ Feingold or an Alan Grayson would be even better.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 12, 2011 6:38:32 PM

Joe,
It's way better to be without a job in Germany than in America. Plus, Germany is a leading exporter along with China. Germany competes on the world market, which we don't and can't.

My "solutions" are about getting everyone to work, not about ensuring no pay cuts, or any of the other things that scare you. You just can't get your head around the fact that one way or another we have to pay for our idiotic non-welfare-state society's ills. Currently we're giving our money to the health insurance companies, to the banksters, to corporate welfare companies like GE, to the Pentagon, to the whole spectrum of crony capitalists that run our country ... and boy, do they make us pay.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 12, 2011 6:58:52 PM

Nothing tightens those alluded to sphincter muscles of a certain segment of the "fire-breathing liberal" contingent than criticizing Obama - I began on January 23rd, three days after President Obama's inauguration when two missile attacks from U.S. drones killed 14 people in north-western Pakistan and the young president already had blood on his hands. Thus, I now have to walk on egg shells when airing any grievances concerning Obama's policies, rhetoric, etc. with my otherwise like-thinking and pragmatic in-laws (most of my other criticisms are better articulated by Glenn Greenwald, et al, although Mr. Cilliers gets to the meat of my economic grievances when he talks about Obama's political appointments, from Geitner and the team of Clintonites to Immelt)- and usually results in the onslaught of schoolyard-like questions, such as "You think you could do better?"

The Phils, Bills, Foppes, Patricks, and Ulysses at 14s, et al, whose sphincter muscles seem permanently clinched in a humorless deathgrip need intellectual, and actual, enemas.

Your practice paid off: I laughed out loud many times while reading your essay, agreed with the crescendo and accellerando of the perfectly-pitched "dumbfuck" (and its variations), and shared in your assessment of why commonsense solutions will never be adopted during this Götterdämmerung, this collapsing in on itself of civilization, this immense otherness beyond the outer perimeter of my sphere of influence. But I DID laugh out loud, and that's something.

Posted by: stefan michael | Apr 12, 2011 8:14:11 PM

crescendo and accellerando ... oh stefan, what can I say? May roses garnish your path through life, and may all good things fall upon you with gentle plops.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 12, 2011 9:03:18 PM

Nothing tightens those alluded to sphincter muscles of a certain segment of the "fire-breathing liberal" contingent than criticizing Obama - I began on January 23rd, three days after President Obama's inauguration when two missile attacks from U.S. drones killed 14 people in north-western Pakistan and the young president already had blood on his hands. Thus, I now have to walk on egg shells when airing any grievances concerning Obama's policies, rhetoric, etc. with my otherwise like-thinking and pragmatic in-laws (most of my other criticisms are better articulated by Glenn Greenwald, et al, although Mr. Cilliers gets to the meat of my economic grievances when he talks about Obama's political appointments, from Geitner and the team of Clintonites to Immelt)- and usually results in the onslaught of schoolyard-like questions, such as "You think you could do better?"

The Phils, Bills, Foppes, Patricks, and Ulysses at 14s, et al, whose sphincter muscles seem permanently clinched in a humorless deathgrip need intellectual, and actual, enemas.

Your practice paid off: I laughed out loud many times while reading your essay, agreed with the crescendo and accellerando of the perfectly-pitched "dumbfuck" (and its variations), and shared in your assessment of why commonsense solutions will never be adopted during this Götterdämmerung, this collapsing in on itself of civilization, this immense otherness beyond the outer perimeter of my sphere of influence. But I DID laugh out loud, and that's something.

Posted by: stefan michael | Apr 12, 2011 9:48:29 PM

Russ Feingold!


Voted Against Patriot Act


Progressives United

Posted by: Louise Gordon | Apr 12, 2011 10:23:29 PM

And poor Evert must have the loosest sphincter of all...well, with all those syncophant heads stuck up there all at once! How can he hope to write when all he can think about is how he'll manage to dump his next smelly brown loaf in the shitter.

I do not speak for all the "Bills" who post to this site, I have not seen much in the way of discussion of alternatives, but mostly ad-hominem attacks on those who may have a different take on the problems. My sphincter is fine tho', thank you..

For my part, somebody has to pay for the mess we are all in. That will be all of us. If there is any justice in the world, the rich will pay more..much more than most of us. Bringing back the 90% tax rate on the super rich may be a place to start...as well as streamlining the tax code.

Posted by: Bill | Apr 13, 2011 6:14:18 AM

Bill:
Sycophants? Sycophants? (Learn how to spell it, not-Bill Bill.)

Are you talking about the 3QD readers who are sane of mind, deep of thought, and like to laugh?

The word for them is not sycophants, but progressives with a sense of humor.

Would that there were more of us -- on 3QD and everywhere else in our sorely afflicted country and world.

Evert Cilliers aka Adam Ash

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 13, 2011 8:50:14 AM

I never said i did not like your rants...altho' Al Franken was funnier, until he discovered that politics is actually hard work..

Posted by: Bill | Apr 13, 2011 10:17:49 AM

"This is where Firedoglake, MoveOn and other forces on the left can make a difference."

Come on, Evert, get real. The Tea Party is a petty bourgeois movement that got started by spontaneous combustion on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, and built momentum by mobbing Congressman over Obamacare in the summer of 09.

Working-class Americans and their sympathetic allies need to start something similar. That means flash mobbing the power elite: Congressmen, government officials, corporate CEO's (and corporate headquarters), major banking institutions, Wall Street, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, the presidents of Ivy League universities, leading trade economists, etc. Five-hundred people crowding around these people and places raising cane would make the evening news. Five thousand would start to get their attention. Five hundred thousand would rock the nation. Fifty million would start to turn the political tide.

Either the American people are a nation of sheep or they will take matters into their own hands.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 13, 2011 10:34:40 AM

I forgot to mention the foundations. Definitely flash mob them.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 13, 2011 10:37:52 AM

Flash mobbing can be organized on a city-wide basis. By facebook, twitter, cell-phone -- if the anger and frustration and fear and insecurity are there, it shouldn't take much.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 13, 2011 10:39:59 AM

Smart mobs is another name for it. Just keep them peaceful but raucous. Non-violence is essential.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 13, 2011 10:41:44 AM

And beware agent provocateurs.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 13, 2011 10:42:26 AM

Luke,
You're on to something with flash mobbing. I wish I lived in Washington which is where this should be happening every day.

Bill, sorry I jumped to a conclusion. You're right about Al Franken; he was really funny and now he is becoming a stalwart, sober pillar of the progressive left. Could be he runs for Prez one day. Now that would be an improvement on Obama.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 13, 2011 12:21:13 PM

Dear Evert,

The uprising, if there is one, will not start in Berkeley. It will be in some obscure corner of the heartland, in our own little Tunisia.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Apr 13, 2011 6:53:21 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

soubriquet on Tuesday Poem

Eli on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Jim on Tuesday Poem

Josef Stern on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Shelley on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Bill on The Beautiful German Language

Eleutheria on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Eleutheria on Tuesday Poem

Raza Husain on the culture animal

musafir on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

KRS on Tuesday Poem

Félix E. F. Larocca, MD on Tuesday Poem

LWR on Tuesday Poem

Joss on Tuesday Poem

LWR on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Rashid on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Yoann on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Dave Ranning on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

sadhana on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Carol Westbrook on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Ken Bryant on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Umer Vakil on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Kabir on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

seth edenbaum on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Nina on White Indians

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed