Archive

Posts Tagged ‘economic catastrophe’

Obamanomics: An economic disaster of untold proportions…

November 23, 2008 Leave a comment

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Barack Obama’s economic plan“, posted with vodpod

The Moron and his Wall Street crew thought it might be a good idea to inject trillions of dollars into the failing financial system to stimulate new lending, so they handed out billions to every banker they could find – forced them to accept the money, by some reports.

They stuffed hundreds of billions more into the pockets of central bankers from virtually every nation and on almost every continent – Africa, of course, seems to have been bypassed on this astonishing and unprecedented act of charity.

The financial markets responded by immediately shedding trillions of dollars of wealth.

As fast as the U.S Treasury and Federal Reserve could shovel money out the door, investors’ shoveled it right back in. The withdrawal of liquidity from every market proceeded apace as every market player with the means at hand sought the safest form of investment possible: US treasury bonds.

By last week, Hank Paulson threw up his hands and finally surrendered to the obvious: Mr. Market hates money! And, the wealth destruction we are witnessing results not from too little money in circulation, but too much.

Sisyphean efforts notwithstanding, Mr. Market has made clear society is no longer bound by the laws of scarcity and any interventions made on the premise that such scarcity exists will be rebuffed.

Time to wake up, people!

This is not the economy of the Founding Fathers. In about the same time one of that generation of Americans could travel from Boston to England – three months – China will bring 13 new power generating plants online. The productive capacity at our fingertips is of several orders of magnitude greater than that even enjoyed by mid-Twentieth Century Americans.

Now the Messiah has stepped forward to try his hand at the tasks which bedevil his predecessor. Saturday, Barack Obama announced his intention to spend perhaps as much as $600 billion on a stimulus package with a goal of creating 2.5 million new jobs through the start of 2011, according to the Huffington Post:

“These aren’t just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis; these are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long,” Obama said in the weekly Democratic radio address. The economic recovery plan being developed by his staff aims to create 2.5 million jobs by January 2011, and he wants to get it through Congress quickly and sign it soon after taking office.

He called the plan “big enough to meet the challenges we face” and said that it will jump-start job creation but also “lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy.

If the Moron and his band of Wall Street predators imagined fixing a financial system choking on bloated bonuses, record profits and years of easy credit with even more trillions of dollars proffered on the easiest of terms, the Messiah and his Clintonite apostles have now decided the fix for an economy predicted to shed millions of jobs and hundreds billion of dollars in government revenue is to “create” more jobs, and run bigger deficits to do it.

Perhaps, we are incredibly dense, but Mr. Market seems to be saying we need less government, less capital, and less work. But, you keep electing people who seem determined to increase all three!

Give us a clue, people: What the fuck are we missing here?

What the fuck is so difficult about having a society where people spend less of their life immersed in the soul destroying filth of labor, greed and, faceless bureaucracy?

What the fuck is so horrifying about devoting less of your time to the mad scramble to pay bills, balance budgets, and find childcare for your own neglected latchkey children, that you would fight so strenuously to increase the very things that makes these things more onerous?

It is clear to us what Donald Trump gets out of this: he couldn’t find a date if he didn’t own a modeling agency.

And, we know what the Moron and Messiah get out of it: Its great to have everyone stand when you walk into a room; its great to glad hand all your class mates who now lead other nations, and know, deep down inside, you won the biggest prize of all – seven fleets prowling the world’s waters, and enough nukes to burnish the surface of the earth with glass, and precipitate a new glacier age.

But just what the fuck do you get out of it?

How is it improving your sex life?

How does it boost your bragging rights at state dinners?

The Messiah has now embarked on culmination of the very disaster begun by his predecessor. Instead of grasping the fundamental logic of this crisis – that working hours must be reduced; and, that government must be reduced along with this – he has chosen to intensify that crisis.

Resolution of this crisis will now likely be imposed in the harshest and most chaotic form possible, with all the incalculably catastrophic unfolding of events that this implies: The default and bankruptcy of the United States government, and subsequent collapse of global economic activity.

Advertisements

20 more reasons to reduce working time now…

November 21, 2008 Leave a comment

73079997MG008_forumOur favorite doomsayer, Nouriel Roubini, has returned with an expanded list of 20 reasons why this will be a longer and deeper recession than common wisdom imagines.

The driving force for this recession, which, he predicts, will be the worst since World War II, and will last through 2009, is, of course, that you are so deep in debt you are incapable of maintain your current standard of living.

While you were looking the other way, Washington has driven you to the brink of impoverishment.

All along, Washington’s strategy has been to hold your income and wages down, while furnishing you with ever greater amounts of easy credit to purchase homes, cars, and other big tickets items – items which, once purchased, created demand for additional complementary goods, like refrigerators and televisions, roads and bridges.

For the most part, this has worked for the last sixty years since President Truman first signed off on National Security Council Memorandum 68. And Washington was richly rewarded with a growing economy out of which it could siphon an ever greater portion of resources to build out its massive empire.

Built on the 1930s depression in the demand for industrial and farm labor, which remains the core of the economy and has never gone away, Washington has been able to erect a massive bubble economy based on easy credit, the proliferation of service (non-goods producing) oriented businesses, government employment, and an ever lengthening work day – a work day growing longer not primarily with the addition of more hours per individual employee, but the addition of more wage earners per household.

(We call this a bubble economy because it consists of pseudo-economic activity which is entirely empty, satisfies no human need whatsoever, puts no food on the table, and adds nothing to your standard of living. An example of this is the confession of a friend who is a classic example of the bubble economy employee: his job is to support the computer systems of a well known financial company. As a practical matter, he often states, “My job is to drag email from the help-desk inbox to one of the folders under the inbox.”)

From your point of view, the ever lengthening work day was the result of inflation and taxation, and the stagnation or fall of real income in the face of rising prices. Over time the income gained by traditional male wage earner required the addition of wages earned by his female counterpart in order to keep up with the pace of inflation.

Families with a single earner – so-called broken homes, run by single mothers – felt the crushing loss created by inflation and became the fodder for the growing mass of families permanently mired in poverty – a permanent underclass of multi-generational losers.

Hence, politicians like Jesse Jackson, and Barack Obama seem that much more astonishing because they managed to escape just this government provoked poverty trap to rise to their present circumstances – thus making it possible to face millions of others not so lucky or resourceful, to tell them, “You too can overcome everything we have thrown in your path designed to make you fail.”

First, turn off that television you purchased on the credit we provided in lieu of a decent wage.

Over the past sixty years, these two measures employed by households to maintain their income in face of Washington’s deliberate policy of economic growth (the official name for government created inflation) – the entrance of millions of mothers into the labor force and the accumulation of household debt – have reached their maximum sustainable levels.

According to Roubini,

The US consumer is shopped out saving less and debt burdened and now faltering…millions of households are insolvent, [slipping] into negative equity territory and on the verge of losing their homes…

There is no solution to this downward spiral, there is only an adjustment to it: the immediate reduction of working hours.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: “Never in the history of the world…”

October 23, 2008 Leave a comment

Interesting interview with Mr. Taleb, author of the book, The Black Swan, on PBS:

BENOIT MANDELBROT: That is not well-understood. In fact, that is misunderstood for which tools have been developed which assume that changes are always very small.

If one of them comes, nothing bad happens. If several of them come together, very bad things have happened. And the theory does not take account of that, and the theory doesn’t take account of very large and sudden changes in anything.

The theory thinks that things move slowly, gradually, and can be corrected as they change, whereas, in fact, they may change extremely brutally.

NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB: Now you understand why I’m worried. I hope I’m wrong. I wake up every morning — actually, I don’t wake up every morning now. I start to wake up at night the last couple of weeks hoping that I’m wrong, begging to be wrong.

I think that we may be experiencing something that is vastly worse than we think it is.

A rather brutal and passimistic prediction which, as one might expect considering the looking glass nature of capitalist market relations, sees the approaching end of the epoch of scarcity as catastrophe.

A view we share since the only means of avoiding said catastrophe is to recognize the epoch of scarcity is ending – something which, so far, appears beyond the intellectual capacity of even our most far sighted members.

When it was “different this time”: A reflection on the wisdom of Lord Keynes

October 21, 2008 2 comments

The Financial Times has an interesting article on renewed interest in Lord John Maynard Keynes, the gist of which is captured in this excerpt:

The heart of [Keynes book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money] is the idea that economic downturns are not necessarily self-correcting. Classical economics held that business cycles were unavoidable and that peaks and troughs would pass. Keynes contended that in certain circumstances economies could get stuck. If individuals and businesses try to save more, they will cut the incomes of other individuals and businesses, which will in turn cut their spending. The result can be a downward spiral that will not turn up again without outside intervention.

What the Financial Times fails to mention, is that, up until the Great Depression, economic downturns were self-correcting.

The intellectual elite of the nation were alledgedly confused at this empirical refutation of all their grand theories on how the world worked to such an extent the most honest among them began to question the validity of the existing order itself.

According to Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman:

A reasonable man might well have concluded that capitalism had failed, and that only huge institutional changes – perhaps the nationalization of the means of production – could restore economic sanity. Many reasonable people did, in fact, reach that conclusion: large numbers of British and American intellectuals who had no particular antipathy toward markets and private property became socialists during the depression years simply because they saw no other way to remedy capitalism’s colossal failures.

And, by failing to note the “minor” fact that the Great Depression was something different, the FT is not required to ask the crucial question: Why was the Great Depression different? Krugman admits as much when he writes:

Although Keynes speculated about the causes of the business cycle in Chapter 22 of The General Theory, those speculations were peripheral to his argument. Instead, Keynes saw it as his job to explain why the economy sometimes operates far below full employment. That is, The General Theory for the most part offers a static model, not a dynamic model – a picture of an economy stuck in depression, not a story about how it got there. So Keynes actually chose to answer a more limited question than most people writing about business cycles at the time.

Again, I didn’t understand the importance of that strategic decision on Keynes’s part the first time I read The General Theory. But it’s now obvious to me that most of Book II is a manifesto on behalf of limiting the question. Where pre-Keynesian business cycle theory told complex, confusing stories about disequilibrium, Chapter 5 makes the case for thinking of an underemployed economy as being in a sort of equilibrium in which short-term expectations about sales are, in fact, fulfilled. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 argue for replacing all the talk of forced savings, excess savings, and so on that was prevalent in pre-Keynesian business cycle theory – talk that stressed, in a confused way, the idea of disequilibrium in the economy – with the simple accounting identity that savings equal investment.

And Keynes’s limitation of the question was powerfully liberating. Rather than getting bogged down in an attempt to explain the dynamics of the business cycle – a subject that remains contentious to this day – Keynes focused on a question that could be answered. And that was also the question that most needed an answer: given that overall demand is depressed – never mind why – how can we create more employment?

Thus, for all the renewed interest in the theories of Lord Keynes, with his insights into the problem of persistent unemployment we are no closer to understanding what actually happened in 1929 which was different from the many depression, panics, and dislocations which occurred from about 1830 onward, for which the standard responses of a balanced budget and patience had become the accepted wisdom.

And, it was precisely this accepted wisdom which so miserably failed in addressing the profound problems of the Thirties. Something had changed, and this alteration in economic circumstance made the conventional wisdom obsolete. Moreover, it threatened the existing order, disorganized that order’s chief defenders, and presented Washington, Wall Street, and their intellectual apologists with such dire implications as a full scale revolt among the class of hungry wage slaves.

Those latter would be our parents and grandparents – that’s right, they suspected your grandparents of harboring the same Bolshevik sympathies which are alleged to be held by Barack Obama today. What fools these Republicans are: Barack Obama wouldn’t have had the balls required to carry the ammo belt for your grandparents if they had actually decided to storm the Congress and the White House in those days.

*****

To add a twist to this imperfect and amateur stab at economic history we should acknowledge that everything stated above about economists being confused about the causes of the Great Depression is pure bunk.

In fact, it was common knowledge, drawn on much empirical study of the details of industrial production, that capitalism was generating such massive surplus output of every kind of good the working day would have to be reduced sooner or later, or capitalism itself would collapse.

And, let us be completely clear on this point: Karl Marx explicitly outlined a path of social development wherein the distribution of the social product of labor would evolve from one based on wages – to each according to his work – to one no longer bound by the requirements of scarcity – “To each according to his needs.” He knew the progressive improvement in the productivity of society was bringing the age of scarcity to a close, and spent the better part of his life writing about it.

Lord Keynes, unlike worthless modern day hacks, such as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, was completely familiar with the works of Karl Marx, and even directly references him in the opening pages of the above mentioned book.

*****

Bertrand Russell

Beyond Marx’s explicit outline of the transition to a post-economic society, a society no longer bound by the laws of scarcity, Lord Keynes had the advantage of conventional wisdom which also explicitly stated the length of the working day would have to be shortened. Among them was his colleague and friend, Bertrand Russell, who wrote these words fully four years before the publication of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:

I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.

First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.

Throughout Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of men, more respected than either of the classes of workers. There are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might therefore be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is only rendered possible by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.

Not to be confusing on this point, Bertrand Russell adds this lesson of history:

The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery.

*****

Sir Sidney Chapman

One may ignore the opinions of one’s friends in this matter, and certainly it is acceptable to ignore the Father of Communism in every matter, yet, Keynes needed not only to ignore the above commonly known views, but also the views of some of his most honored contemporary economists, including Sir Sidney Chapman, author of Hours of labour, in The Economic Journal (vol. 19, pp. 353-373) who was, according to his biography in the Wiki, President of the Economics and Statistics Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science; Joint Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade; Commander of the Order of the British Empire; Companion of the Order of the Bath; and, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath.

And, further, notes the Wiki:

In 1915, he was asked by the Board of Trade to head inquiries into wartime industrial organisation, initially on a part-time basis, but later full-time… [and] In 1927 he was appointed Chief Economic Adviser to HM Government and held the post until 1932, when he became a member of the Import Duties Advisory Committee until his retirement shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. During the war he served on the Central Price Regulation Committee and was Controller of Matches.

As Tom Walker points out:

Chapman’s analysis arrived at several remarkable and far-reaching conclusions. First, the length of working day that would be best for workers’ welfare is shorter than the length that would produce the largest output. Second, the play of competition would tend to make the working day too long, even from the standpoint of production. Third, improved methods of production would lead to a progressive reduction of the optimal length for the working day. As a consequence, renewed conflict over the length of the working day would break out from time to time.

Lord Keynes was not only familiar with the works of Sir Chapman, he directly critiques the work of A.C. Pigou, who, according to Walker, “based his own discussion of working time in The Economics of
Welfare
on Chapman’s theory.”

Lord Keynes, therefore, did not simply neglect to discuss the causes of the Great Depression – how mass unemployment is possible in the first place” in the words of the Nobel Laureate, and useless political hack wannabe, Paul Krugman – he chose to ignore nearly a century of acquired wisdom in social criticism, economics and a throrough going examination of the capitalist production process – both theoretical and empirical – by such disparate figures as the highly honored men of the British Empire and its most hated avowed enemies.

*****

Supply and Demand Curve

Supply and Demand Curve

In place of this accumulated wisdom, Lord Keynes substituted a proposal for a mechanism of government intervention which has now resulted in a massive sixty year old bubble economy – a bubble which now threatens to implode, and which may result in the single most catastrophic economic event in mankind’s long history if it is not reversed in an orderly fashion.

The outline of this substitution, as set forth by Krugman:

Economies can and often do suffer from an overall lack of demand, which leads to involuntary unemployment

The economy’s automatic tendency to correct shortfalls in demand, if it exists at all, operates slowly and painfully

Government policies to increase demand, by contrast, can reduce unemployment quickly

Sometimes increasing the money supply won’t be enough to persuade the private sector to spend more, and government spending must step into the breach

By concentrating on an economic abstraction, demand, Lord Keynes was able to sidestep the very question thrown up by the massive and unprecedented persistent unemployment of the Great Depression. As World War II proved, there was no shortage of productive capacity to create enormous amounts of goods of every description, and employ miilions who had suffered relentless poverty and stood in soup lines or drifted westward in search of jobs.

That is, there was no shortage as long as the goods were armaments of unprecedented ferocity, and those millions engaged either in producing them, or using them on the bloodiest battlefields in human history. The actual shortage was the opportunity to make massive profits producing anything other than horrendous engines of annihilation.

As one would expect, a social organization based on the assumption of fundamental scarcity in all the goods society consumed – the market – failed to allocate these same goods once they became abundant. As consumer products became abundant – which is to say, as society gained the capacity to produce more of everything than was immediately needed – the prices of the goods dropped below their costs of production; profits fell to zero; and, the owners of the productive stock of society – factories, farms, etc. – took this as a signal to stop producing – in the process laying off millions of employees – and, to stop investing further in the companies they owned.

And, with millions now suddenly thrown into the streets, the demand for the goods they had consumed fell even further – the key word, demand, here meaning, simply, unemployed working families did not have the wages to purchase what they themselves had produced.

It is important that you understand this: it wasn’t that people weren’t hungry, homeless, and in need of what they had produced with their own hands, THEY DID NOT HAVE THE WAGES WITH WHICH TO PURCHASE WHAT THEY NEEDED.

Demand, is a term used by that most crippled of human beings, the economist, to denote another less fortunate human being – typically, not an economist – having both the need for a loaf of bread AND the means to purchase it.

In other words, Lord Keynes was saying capitalism had placed an insurmountable barrier between the needs of millions of unemployed and the satisfaction of these need – cash.

Since, wages slaves like us have nothing to exchange for the goods we need to live, save our own bodies, which we hire out to the highest bidder like a twenty dollar hooker in an alley along Wall Street, not being able to prostitute ourselves, one Donald or Warren at a time, is quite the same thing as being left to starve – a starving wage slave is NOT an economic category you can plot on a curve.

What Keynes showed is that governments could step in and provide this lost demand with the printing presses of the treasuries of every country – substituting its own demand for that of the unemployed wage slaves like us, and then pay us to slaughter the wage slaves of other countries, or produce the means to slaughter them.

Happy with this solution, every major nation in Europe, Asia, and America immediately began printing their currencies as quickly as possible, building incredible engines of mass murder, and, when they felt themselves strong enough to despoil their neighbors’ homes, industries and civilian populations, launching the most amazing acts of racial suicide ever to be witnessed by God or man.

An event for which we will always be able to thank Lord Keynes, who proved we are truly as unworthy of divine breath as we have always been taught by priests, rabbis, imams and assorted other instigators of communal guilt and insecurity.

*****

It is for this reason, we hold there is no danger of another Great Depression.

And the reason for this assertion is simple: the first Great Depression is still alive and in good health beneath the illusory prosperity of our own time – an iceberg hidden just beneath the murky waters of our economy as the grand ship of state plows forward with the cast of Gilligan’s Island firmly in command.

Which is just another way of saying this:

For all the economic dislocation rendered thus far in the present crisis, with the disappearance of the five big global investment banks, the collapse of AIG, the nationalization of Freddie and Fannie, the partial or complete nationalization of the banking industry of virtually every major nation, the momentary cessation of interbank lending, the serious interruption of international trade, and, the collapse of the stock markets of every major financial center on the planet, things are poised to get much, much worse.

Worse, as in the Great Depression was sixty years ago, and in that time the productive capacity of society has likely at least quadrupled, implying as much as 90 percent unemployment, if there is any employment at all for anyone not wearing a uniform, when the bubble erected according to the wisdom of Lord Keynes finally gives way.

Avoiding this disaster – if it can be avoided – is the historical necessity of the moment, and starts with the immediate reduction of the work week.

Foreign holders of US debt getting nervous…

October 3, 2008 Leave a comment

From Bloomberg:

South Korea’s Lee Wants China, Japan Crisis Meeting

“The U.S. government is moving rapidly to expand fiscal spending, spurring concern about the deterioration of its balance sheet and a possible plunge in the dollar,” said Hiroaki Muto, a senior economist at Sumitomo Mitsui Asset Management Co. in Tokyo. “Sales of U.S. Treasuries may fuel such fears and fan panicked sales of those securities.”

So I woke this morning to find…

October 3, 2008 Leave a comment

…that the plumbing in my house was clogged.

I took the entire contents of my bank account and pushed it into the pipes to unclog it, as had been suggested by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson.

It didn’t work…