Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

What do we want our economy to do? Misuse of GDP

by Divorced one like Bush
(successfully I might add)

I had the following quotes sitting around for awhile. Like May of 07. Being that we have a “crisis” with our economy (I have a hard time with the word crisis being used, it implies suddenness, unseen), a new governing philosophy in place and we really, really, really have to broaden our discussion, I feel this is the time to post some thoughts on GDP. It goes along with asking what I think is the most important, “In the beginning”, big bang question to ask now that we have been a “great social experiment” for TWO HUNDRED and THIRTY TWO years: What do we want our economy to do for us?

I think it’s about time we ask this question, No? The “for us” is the important subject of the question.

But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction – purpose and dignity – that afflicts us all. Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product – if we judge the United States of America by that – that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife. And the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.
Robert Kennedy, University of Kansas. 3/18/68

Unfortunately GDP figures are generally used without the caveat that they represent an income that cannot be sustained. Current calculations ignore the degradation of the natural resource base and view the sale of non-renewable resources entirely as income. A better way must be found to measure the prosperity and progress of mankind”
Barber Conable,
former President of the World Bank, 1989

Simon Kuznets – GDP’s creator – in his very first report to the US Congress in 1934 said[2]:
…the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income. If the GDP is up, why is America down? Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.

Tags: , , , Comments Off on What do we want our economy to do? Misuse of GDP | |

TV serials as an indicator of inflation

by: Divorced one like Bush

Just a little point of order regarding how bad this economy is.

Lost in Space 120 episodes, 33.2 per season
Batman (on twice weekly) 120 episodes, 53.33 per season
The Virginian, 249 episodes, 27.67 per season
The Beverly Hillbillies, 274 episodes, 30 per season
Gilligan’s Island, 98 episodes, 32.67 per season

New season started this year around September 22. Last Monday night (10/27/08), CBS sitcom night, my date night with my flower girl… every one of the shows was a repeat.

It’s bad enough we get 7 minutes of commercials all timed to the other networks, but now they can’t even get to Halloween before running out of new shows!

We’re entering a depression, and we can’t get new comedy? Guess I’ll just have to rely on the real thing. All 190 of them.

On no! They’ve been co-oped.

There is only one solution. We must all immediately call our congress critters and the presidential candidates and demand a bailout for the sitcom industry! It is our only salvation, our only true hope. It is what worked in the past regarding our sanity and stopped us from becoming like the bankers we loath.

Tags: , , , Comments Off on TV serials as an indicator of inflation | |

Taxation’s Rhetoric: Today and yesterday’s economic crap

by: Divorced one like Bush

In a posting regarding which presidents would be considered socialist I found the following curious:
1921 – 4% 73% Census
1922 – 4% 56% Census
1923 – 3% 56% Census
1924 – 1.5% 46% Census
1925-1928 – 1.5% 25% Census
1929 – 0.375% 24% Census
1930-1931 – 1.125% 25% Census

1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS

2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2008 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS

Notice anything about these 3 groups of income tax rates? No, I’m not suggesting that the lower rates are the smoking gun of today’s economic crap. Don’t want to run afoul of those scoldings of association is not causation critiques. But, do you not find it just a bit curious that approximately 8 years prior to an economic troubling time we get talked into reducing that tax rates? Three periods in history, all preceding an economy of crap. Varying degrees of crap, but crap just the same. We even had a housing bubble for 2 of them!

None of these tax changes can happen without convincing. A dialog has to have happened to convince the people that it is a good idea. And, I bet that the rhetoric of tax reduction is only part of a package regarding the overall idea of what is best to “grow the economy”. I bet, that tax reduction presentations have never been presented as a stand alone, single issue, unrelated to accomplishing a larger money shift. Being that we are relating today to the Big One, while at the same time hearing muttering that we are in “new territory”, my Angry Bear side asked: What else is similarly presented in the 20’s as part of a sales job of an over all ideology that preceded today’s and yesterday’s crap?

Installment Sell

Manufacturers realized they could expand their profits if they could grow their markets and so installment selling was introduced. The increased production volumes reduced the unit cost of items making them more affordable, and easy terms made for easy sales.

There is a reprint of an article specifically looking at the pros and cons of credit purchasing. Rather fascinating reading.

PAYING FOR THINGS ON “EASY” TERMS has become such a conspicuous element in American life, and so large a factor in our prosperity, that the economists have been doing a great deal of worrying about it. Source: The Literary Digest for March 5, 1927

Sub-prime anyone? Oh, did you notice that it was a concerted effort to sell the consumer that installment purchasing was good? I wonder if blaming the consumer for spending what they did not have was part of the discussion when the economy turned to crap then?

THE CHRISTMAS CHEER IN WALL STREET 1926

Christmas distribution of bonuses in Wall Street, when finally added up, is expected to prove the most generous ever made except during some of the flush World War years.

No accurate account of sums paid out can be made, according to the New York Times, because many firms do not announce their benefactions, but last year’s total was estimated at $50,000,000, and it is expected that the Wall Street firms paying bonuses are being no less generous this year. In fact, some firms which have never paid bonuses will start the custom this Christmas. Probably the largest distribution, we read, is being made by banks, which have been exceptionally prosperous.

Converting that $50 million we get various amounts: $586 million via CPI, $494 million via GDP deflator, and (drum roll please), $1.999 million via unskilled wage factor.

There was one perspective that was not accurate in their prophecies for America:

America has played square in China, and will have an inside track in China against the commerce of other nations.
China buys one billion dollars worth of outside goods every year. But that’s only, a drop in the bucket compared with what this customer may buy some day. “When the per capita foreign trade of China,” runs one government report, “is equal to that of Australia, the total will be sixty-five billion dollars a year which China will pay to the outside world for her imports.
“You can’t help seeing American business grow in China,” a business man from China told me. “Why, it has multiplied itself by four within the past dozen years. It’s eight times bigger than it, was thirty years ago.

The inaccuracy? The quotes are from a perspective of the American selling to China, not from China. And you thought Nixon opened up China.

Getting back specifically to the tax reductions, this web site offers a lot: The Tax History Museum
From reading the site, it appears a progressive tax system was put in place for the WW I war effort. They even put in a munitions tax to “appease” opponents of American involvement in the war; levied on manufacturers of military equipment, it was designed to prevent war profiteering”. There was an “excess profits” tax put in place which appears to be what the later progressive income tax became. Arguments for it were as today: equality. Against it:

It attracted bitter opposition from business groups, who considered the tax a threat to managerial prerogatives. They were certainly justified in their suspicion, since both Wilson and his allies in Congress considered the levy a legitimate means of business regulation.

Well slap me silly! A tax used to curb the excess of business. I hear some of you saying: Excessive CEO compensation regulation please?

After the war, the argument was that such high rates were “unsustainable”. It was the party of today’s tax cuts who yesterday cut the taxes:

Republican lawmakers joined with a series of GOP presidents to engineer tax cuts in 1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928. Andrew Mellon — who moved into his Treasury office in 1921 and stayed their until 1932 — was the principal architect of these reforms.

Certainly some Democratic elected joined in (early Blue Dogs, DLC’s of their time?).

In 1980 we got schooled in the Stockman trickle down theory of economic growth which included lower taxes will raise collections and bolsters economic growth. It was all about cutting taxes by his confession though. So, as I look to find evidence of selling tax cuts as a part of an ideology sell job regarding how an economy should run, such being clues that in the near future we will have economic crap, the following regarding Mr. Mellon’s position just confirms how ignorant we have been in our recent times (post 1981) to have followed those who suggest tax cuts as part of their economic program:

“Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life,” he wrote. “But when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”

Worse yet, Mellon argued, high rates didn’t even raise money. By encouraging both legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion, they eroded the tax base and reduced overall revenue. Lower rates, he said, would actually raise money by spurring economic growth and reducing the incentive for tax avoidance. “It seems difficult for some to understand,” he complained, “that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the government, and that more revenue may actually be obtained by lower rates.”

Can we have been any more stupid, shown our ignorance more than to have taken as a new idea, language regarding taxation’s need to be reduced and it’s effect on filling the government coffers that is as old as almost the day progressive taxation came into existence? Unfortunately, our stupidity has been worse than accepting Mr. Mellon’s similar arguments to those used by Reagan et al suggests. That is because, back in Mr. Mellon’s day he at least understood what Mr. Buffet of today understands but congress and by extension US do not:

Of particular note, he suggested taxing “earned” income from wages and salaries more lightly that “unearned” income from investments. As he argued:

The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs.

Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their metal and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.

Again I ask: HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS? HOW MANY FREAKIN’ TIMES DO WE HAVE TO LEARN THE LESSON?

Tags: , , , , Comments Off on Taxation’s Rhetoric: Today and yesterday’s economic crap | |

Larger, greater than expected…Declines

by Divorced one like Bush

US Initial jobless claims decline larger than expected in May 31 week (6/5/08)

Mortgage finance giant suffers much larger-than-expected loss due to reserves for credit losses and slashes its dividend to preserve capital. (8/8/08)

Factory orders decline more than expected in August (10/2/08)

Retail sales for September posted its steepest fall in 3 years, down by 1.2%, larger than the expected 0.7% decline…The New York Fed manufacturing index plunged to a record low for October, sharply worse than expectations to -24.62…Meanwhile producer prices climbed higher than forcast…(10/16/08)

The University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey posted its steepest drop on record, collapsing far more than expected to 57.7 in October… (10/18/08)

A larger than expected decline in building approvals reflects continued investor caution due to high interest rates, economists say. (Australia, 9/30/08. )

So, what does it say when we read headlines that start with “Larger than expected decline”? Really.

What world, because it is a world phenomenon as shown with the Australia opening news line, are these people living in such that what they read in the data surprises them? Should we not be concerned that those who are being relied on to manage our economy have not expected what they are now seeing? Reading many articles starting off with that phrase “Larger” or “bigger” or “greater” “than expected decline” does not bode well for all the analysis that has been relied on by the managers (would this include investors?) of our economy. I mean, I posted here in comments some time ago that my flower shop has been seeing a steady decline since August 1996. I noted when the first quarter reports for this year came out, based on my flower shop, that we would see some good numbers, but it would only be a burp of pent up desire to spend and should not be considered positive because of the major drop in April and May (usually one of the largest months for flowers).

Do you remember the commentary on how the rising oil prices would not hurt the economy because it was still “relatively” cheap? Was the talk that if oil got back down to $70/barrel then we would know the pricing was speculation? Well? What, are we not concerned now to know if the oil price rise was speculation or not? Or is this another “larger than expected decline”?

Yet, here we are reading commentary that, if we are honest and real, should be giving us great pause as congress formulates policy. Such commentary of surprise as numbers are reported should be raising questions such as: Are we monitoring relevant data for our purpose? Are our theories of what is significant regarding our economic intent valid? Is the data an accurate description of what is happening in our economy? And, the most basic: Why are we surprised? Why were our expectations wrong? Should we be looking for a different school of economic thought than the one that has dominated? (Some time ago, here in RIland an economist from URI thought that tolls collected for the Newport Bridge was a good indicator for our state economy. He found that he was correct.)

Is now the time to broaden the discussion or are we going to wait for more unexpected surprises?

Tags: , , Comments Off on Larger, greater than expected…Declines | |

Mc Cain sinks the Dow!

by Divorced one like Bush

Concerned about the cause of the Dow? Not to fear. Many have been working on it such as Glenn Greenwald.The market does not like someone who is not like them so goes the Mc Cain clan. It is possible, but then Glenn asks for proof and finds an economist of his nature who has discovered it is all due to McCain! He has produced a chart proving it.

I’m convinced. But, I’m going to wait for Cactus’ review of this man’s work.

Tags: , , Comments Off on Mc Cain sinks the Dow! | |

Fannie Mae will need a bailout (prophesy)

By Divorced one like Bush

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

New York Times, 9/30…………………………………..1999.

Who is Mr. Peter Wallison:

A codirector of AEI’s program on financial markets deregulation, Wallison studies banking, insurance, and Wall Street regulation. As general counsel of the U.S. Treasury department, he had a significant role in the development of the Reagan administration’s proposals for the deregulation of the financial services industry.

Interestingly enough, he produced a paperputting it on the dems for the mess in that they wanted “regulation” when the issue was the crap in the portfolio. He quote Greenspan at a subcommittee hearing in 2005:

“We have found no reasonable basis for that portfolio above very minimum needs.” He then proposed “a $100 billion, $200 billion–whatever the number might turn out to be–limit on the size of the aggregate portfolios of those institutions–and the reason I say that is there are certain purposes which I can see in the holding of mortgages which might be helpful in a number of different areas. But $900 billion for Fannie and somewhat less, obviously, for Freddie, I don’t see the purpose of it.” Greenspan then articulated his reasons for limiting the GSEs’ portfolios: “If [Fannie and Freddie] continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road.” He added, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size–and they will, once the crisis, in their judgment, passes–we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”[2]

And the republicans were the ones, proposing proper regulations, but Fannie went to the dems to stop it:

Thus, in January 2005, three Senators–Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), and Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.)–had introduced tough new legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The legislation was state-of-the-art at the time, and included a carefully developed “bright line” test that was intended to end Fannie’s and Freddie’s efforts to break out of the secondary mortgage market as their sole allowable field of operations. But the legislation made no mention of limiting the GSEs’ portfolios.

Sometime you just don’t know what to expect from people based on their ideology. Who knew AEI could understand the Fannie mess to the point of being a profit and yet find that calling for limits to size is not “regulation” because regulation is what the dems want.

American Enterprise Institute: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism[1], and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.

An example of some of their finer work:

In 1980, the American Enterprise Institute for the sum of $25,000 produced a study in support of the tobacco industry titled, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Regulation: Consumer Products. The study was designed to counteract “social cost” arguments against smoking by broadening the social cost issue to include other consumer products such as alcohol and saccharin.

One can also use Wiki if you do not like Source Watch.

Tags: , , Comments Off on Fannie Mae will need a bailout (prophesy) | |

Class War; Appropriateness of the Wealthy’s strategy

A research review by: Divorced one like Bush

Introduction: This review was initiated after reading the report linked at the 25 indicators post. A review of the data regarding accepted economic performance indicators for business cycle peaks of year 2000 and 2008 is presented along with a discussion of the relevance to the strategy of the Wealthy in winning the War of Class. In short, the Wealthy are irrational in their strategy in fighting the War of Class and are in fact losing the war for everyone.

The data:

The growth rate in median family income, however, was slower between the business-cycle peaks of 2000 and 2007 (0.1 percent per year) than it had been between the two earlier peaks in 1989 and 2000 (0.9 percent per year).
Labor productivity, meanwhile, grew more rapidly in the 2000s business cycle (2.5 percent) than it did in the preceding cycle (2.0 percent).
Economic growth was faster over the 1990s business-cycle (3.1 percent per year) than it was over the 2000s cycle (2.3 percent).
…but the 1990s cycle still produced a higher personal savings rate (5.6 percent of disposable personal income) than the 2000s cycle (1.8 percent of disposable personal income).

Another way to view the data is to align each point with the year of origin.
Early years: 2% productivity growth with 0.9% income growth, 5.6 savings, 3.5%economic growth
Versus Bush years: 2.5% productivity growth, .01% income growth, 1.8% savings, 2.3% economic growth.

Analysis: Going forward I will refer to two groups fighting in the Class War. The subject of this study will be called the Wealthy. The Wealthy survive by making money from money. That is the accepted opinion. Though this report suggests that even the top 1% were earning more from wages each year until it reverses in 2000. Quote:

The lower end of this group is not seeing an increase of income from wages. But look at the change in the top 1% and the top 0.1%. They have the greatest increase of their income coming from wages. The entire top 5% sees this, but it is the very top that is seeing a doubling (32 to 63% for the top 1%) and tripling (18.1 to 58.2 for the top 0.1%) of the percentage from wages. (see chart)

The group the Wealthy are fighting will be called the Enemy. The Enemy survive by making money from selling their labor which is tied to productivity.

For all the people who are fighting a class war, looking at the means by which both sides make money and thinking that both want to win it for the long haul, it appears that each side has been losing under the Wealthy’s strategy and tactics used for winning the war. For the Wealthy who make money from money, I assume a higher annual average economic growth would be more beneficial as it means more wealth being created over time, but they have produced lower growth. They appear to have won when the Enemy was able to sell their labor for a higher share of productivity. In fact, it appears that the important factor to the Wealthy winning the war is how much of the productivity gains go to the Enemy instead of how much more work the Wealthy can get out of the Enemy. There appears to be an inverse relationship of income and productivity to the success of the Wealthy in the war. As the share of productivity going to income of the Enemy goes down, economic activity declines. That is, as the Wealthy take more of the productivity gains as a means to win the war, they are in actuality hurting their war efforts. A decline of the economic activity is a war losing results for the Wealthy.

Conclusion: The Wealthy are closer to winning what they want when they let the Enemy win. That they have continued the same strategy during declining indicators and have seen similar battle results in the past (the battle known as the Roaring 20’s comes to mind) suggests that they are not being rational. For the Enemy of the Wealthy, well I guess there is some solace in the thought that the Wealthy are ultimately beating themselves in that they are driving down economic growth. I am reminded of the great wisdom of the infamous class warrior Billy Ray Valentine:

“You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people.”

Of course unexpected events can change the momentum and ultimately the strength of either side. For example, a banking crisis. (An event for which I can find no research that supports one has ever been caused by the tactics of the armies of the Immigrant or Indigent. ) Such an event changes the emphasis of the theater of the war from the broader, larger operation of the market place which requires an understanding of the rules of economic theory and historical economic data to the limited and smaller theater of the halls of government with the need to understand the rules of political theory and historical political data. For either side, the most successful campaign would take into consideration the results of the market place war front when fighting in the halls of government war front.

There is a paradox to the Wealthy winning any battle in the halls of government theater. That they do not heed the historical record of battles within both theaters leads to poor tactics. The Wealthy institute tactics based on non-rational analysis moving them further from their desired goal. Thus, a possible strategy for the Wealthy’s Enemy could be to focus on the Wealthy’s lack of rational analysis. It might be possible for the Enemy to make the Wealthy aware of their self defeating results. Showing the Wealthy that they were more successful when the Enemy received approximately 50% of the productivity gains could be a basis for a treaty. There is data available to the Enemy that suggests when they received gains equal to the rise of productivity, the growth of economic activity was even greater than the period of this study.

To summarize: The Wealthy are poor Class War strategists. They are self defeating in such a way that they remove all ability for either side to win the Class War. The Wealthy must let the Enemy win the war in order for the Wealthy to win. I would caution that any approach toward a treaty by the Enemy to the Wealthy must be taken with care. It is not certain as to whether the Wealthy have the strength of character to accept that they are failures. By evidence of their tactics in the face of the data, forming a treaty with the Wealthy who act irrationally will be met with great frustration by the Enemy.

Tags: , , , Comments Off on Class War; Appropriateness of the Wealthy’s strategy | |

Ms Parker, Mc Cain, Party and Honor

by Divorced one like Bush

Before we get to excited about Ms. Parker’s recent calling out, consider her 9/5 opinion in What Sarah Palin brings to the Republican Party:

And relief that the first Republican woman on a presidential ticket wasn’t going to let them down. No one was going to be embarrassed by John McCain’s maverick pick.

Referring to Palin’s convention speech:

Palin delivered…What she showed was strength, conviction, determination, confidence, a willingness to rumble and fearlessness. No caribou caught in the headlights, she.

I guess Ms. Parker is referring to herself here:

Whatever conclusions the punditry might draw from Palin’s remarks, we can be fairly certain that Middle America felt nothing but redemption and salvation.

Ms. Parker note’s Palin was the savior to the point of being Democratic like:

Behind closed doors around the Twin Cities, talk focused on the need for new templates, new models. Republicans have to communicate that they, too, care about the issues Democrats have claimed as their own — education, health and the environment. They need new ideas and new — younger — faces to deliver the message.

Voila. Enter Palin.

She has animated voters who had little enthusiasm for the race. She has given them the very thing Democrats have been enjoying the past several months: hope and change.

In the end, did Ms. Parker know she was so prophetic?

That’s potent medicine. It also should come with a warning label: “May cause delusions and a false sense of power.”

Ironic no? Of course, maybe Ms. Parker really knew what was real and was hedging her bets. But that would mean all the good stuff written on 9/5/08 was just BS? Well by 9/22 she was coming out of the delusion and sense of power.

The 9/5/08 opinion and her now calling for Mrs. Palin to step down pretty much confirms that McCain et al’s campaign has been and is nothing more than one man’s quest for a trophy to the exclusion of the calling he so desires. Palin stepping down vs McCain firing her will not change the fact that she was chosen as a coach picks a play and a player. It’s all about the trophy. It’s just a game, about the win of the contest. Not about the win of the ideology of governance as Ms. Parker would have us believe.

Face it Ms. Parker, the only way for Mc Cain et al to save face and affirm that his campaign is about the country is to keep Palin. It is the only way to show conviction of his professed American ideals. If he looses the election on his ideals, he has no shame. If Palin goes, he perjures his entire campaign.

I hear Mc Cain is an honorable man. Is he? It is his honor, Ms Parker, that you are holding in your hands with this call.

Tags: , , Comments Off on Ms Parker, Mc Cain, Party and Honor | |

Dear US Citizen, It is your labor being conscripted

by Divorced one like Bush

I just have to get this out because I fear we will not learn from this experience if we do not face up to what really is being put on the line in this crisis: Our labor. I am angry. And I am making this personal. It is personal. I’m speaking to you We the People.

What every solution is proposing in its most boiled down pure form is the conscription of our labor. It is nothing less. Only, it is not conscription for altruistic reasons. It is conscription in service of the most basic of needs: survival.

From this point forward, any gains in productivity will no longer be applied in total toward our quest for a more perfect union and the pursuit of happiness. Think about how much progress will have to be made in labor productivity rise just to offset the $900 billion already tallied and the now additional $700 billion such that we do not lose our current standard of living. If we can not make the increase, how much lost standard of living does this represent? How much more do I have to work, or how much of what I work now will go toward this crisis resolution instead of bettering my life? These are the questions we as citizens should be asking. It’s not like we can all just pay this off by writing a check from our savings. Even if we could, it represents future gains in our personal growth lost.

It is not money. It is not the taxes to be paid. It is not the wealth lost. It is the most basic of human life sustaining and rewarding experiences being taken: labor. Our labor. That which provided the bases for the value of our nation’s worth.

That this crisis resolution is being talked about in dollars does a complete injustice to all of the labor that has come prior to this historic moment. The failure of the system, the loss of value, the loss of the integrate of the system is a testament to the abuse (physical and emotional) that the US citizen has been enduring. That the discussions (and I understand that we have to discuss the mechanics to resolve the crisis) by our elected does not come from the perspective that it is our labor being taken, being assigned is the lie we have allowed ourselves to live. We have not made what takes place in our country personal. It is always abstract in our national discussions.

WAKE UP! KNOCK, KNOCK, HELLOOOOOOOO…this is real. This is happening. You are going to be working, laboring, sweating, getting tired, getting fustrated, longer years of work, more worn out in our retirement from now on. No one else is going to be paying this off. You and I will be paying this off.

It is our fault too, because we are the government. WE ARE THE GGOVERNMENT! (Please keep saying this until it is as natural an understanding as is drinking water to stay healthy.) And, that is the dichotomy to this crisis. In the end the abuse we have endured, the labor we have wasted, the labor we will now forfeit to future social maturity is our own damn fault because, for what ever reason or excuse, we failed to labor within the primary structure of our life’s existence that supports all we believed about our wealth: One Voice, One vote.

So learn the lesson. Remember the lesson. Teach the lesson. To not learn, to forget is to forfeit via conscription your most personal possession: Your labor.

Tags: , , Comments Off on Dear US Citizen, It is your labor being conscripted | |