Job Losses and Recession; Auto Execs--From Tin
Ear to Tin Cup; Mumbai Terror
*Update on Thurs. 12.11: I've added Matt's latest column, "Memo to Obama" below
*Update on Wed. 12.10 -- Adding the article Bob Scheer talked about to links below (Toyota buys GM). PS: Tony's show yesterday was good!! Listen to it at link at the end of the post in red.
*UPDATE: Tuesday 12.9 at 2:30 Pacific 89.9 FM on air in SoCal/streaming live online, via podcast or on-demand: Tune in to hear Tony Blankley discuss "Whither Conservatism" on our show, The Politics of Culture -- with Al Regnery, publisher of American Spectator mag; Tony Perkins, Pres of the Family Research Council, and nay-sayer, David Frum, who's become a critic of the Sarah Palin wing of the party (former Right on LRC, his new blog launches Jan. 20 NewMajority.com). That's www.kcrw.com (click live tab) or online later at www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/pc.
530,000 jobs lost – in November
alone – as the Auto company execs trade their tin ears and corporate jets for
tin cups and a hybrid car ride to DC begging for a bailout…is it policy making or a morality play?
Bob’s worried about Paul Krugman’s prediction for a double-digit drop in the
economy. Arianna calls the economy a stalled plane that needs a jumpstart -- in
mid-air. Tony – without being too Pollyanna-ish – says it may be the worst month
for job losses but it’s ranked the 41st worst month as a percentage
of total jobs…he disagrees with Bob who says those trillion dollars have been
wasted on the financial industry, and he calls for MASSIVE spending on the part
of government (Bob calls that socialism!). The terror in Mumbai is treated
briefly followed by some rather rushed rants.
LINKS:
Matt mentioned this blog: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/
Bob talked about this column:
Paul Krugman, The New York
Times
Conscience of a Liberal
December 4, 2008, 9:07 am
I’ve been
ruminating over economic prospects for next year, and I’m getting scared.
Two points:
1. The economy is falling fast. We’ll see what
tomorrow’s employment report says, but we could well be losing jobs at a rate
of 450,000 or 500,000 a month.
2. Infrastructure spending will take time to get
going — a new Goldman Sachs report suggests that projects that are
“shovel-ready” are probably only a few tens of billions worth, and that a
larger effort would take much of a year to get going……(read the rest at link above)
Bob also mentioned a provocative piece on TruthDig.com about why Toyota should buy GM:
Posted on Dec 5, 2008
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081205_a_toyota_takeover_could_save_gm/
...I believe that considering only these two options for an imperiled GM
—either bailout by the U.S. government or bankruptcy—omits an important
alternative, which I see as the best option: a takeover of GM by Toyota
Motor Corp....
Matt Miller's Latest
Column
from Politico -- December 8,
2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Here's a new column that
ran in Politico on Tuesday. Also, I've begun blogging frequently at my new
website, and hope you'll check it out. http://www.mattmilleronline.com/. As my wife says, if this
technology had been available 13 years ago, she could have had most of the
pleasure of being married to me with none of the aggravation...:)
| |
Memo to Obama: Don't narrow your options
by Matt Miller
As President-elect Barack Obama crafts an economic plan for a
country in crisis, he faces a risk that presidents often don't appreciate until
it's too late: Options presented to presidents are narrowed before they ever
reach their desks. This happened to President-elect Bill Clinton in 1992 in a
way that is instructive for Obama's new economic team and for Democrats who hope
to fix the economy while advancing progressive goals.
While every
presidential transition is hectic and prone to second-guessing, it seems clear
in hindsight that internal debate over Clinton's original economic plan focused
on options that weren't different enough to offer truly alternate paths. As Bob
Woodward later reported, the transition discussion quickly became organized
around several options for what the budget deficit would be four years later -
ranging from $195 billion to $240 billion. In long meetings, Clinton's team
debated which scenario was best in terms of the economy, Clinton's campaign
pledges and the amount of new public investment that these constraints would
accommodate.
Yet the fabled duels
between the "deficit hawks" and the "progressives" on Clinton's team masked a
deeper, surprising consensus. The difference between their options was about $45
billion in four years. That's an $11 billion or so difference per year - less
than 1 percent of the federal budget at the time. This early narrowing of
options - which then framed all subsequent discussion - arguably left the
president with the worst of both worlds: He ended up shortchanging his planned
investments in infrastructure, education, and research and development, even as
he was forced to spend most of his presidency wrestling the deficit to the
ground. It's hard to know if bolder options might have led to different choices,
but such options weren't presented to him.
Today, the risk for Obama is similar. Obama has an ambitious
progressive agenda, must manage the country through an economic crisis and
inherits a tide of red ink much larger than the one Clinton inherited. Yet there
are pluses, as well. A consensus has emerged on the need for a serious new
stimulus for the economy, while economists of all stripes say we should put off
near-term worries about the deficit until the storm has passed.
But this consensus still leaves an enormous range for potential
action. The difference is vast between what an Obama administration can do while
running deficits of $800 billion and $1.3 trillion, or even (hold your hat) $2
trillion, for a couple of years. The temptation may be for his incoming team to
narrowly examine options within a deficit constraint that seems tolerable
because markets already expect it - say, $1 trillion over the next year or two.
I believe Obama should ask to see options that include deficits (meaning
spending boosts and tax cuts) much bigger, and also much smaller, than this.
The guiding question should not be, "What deficit number do we think
is politically tolerable?" - though the optics here will obviously come into
play. The questions should concern (1) what level of new government-generated
demand is needed, and for how long, to offset the coming contraction in private
sector demand; (2) what other parts of his agenda Obama believes the country can
accomplish in his first term, as well as what groundwork can be laid for
accomplishment in a second; and (3) how might this be sustainably financed, even
if the answers go beyond the boundaries of what has been deemed politically or
economically possible.
Once meaningfully different packages are
presented, Obama can decide how he will weigh the trade-offs, how he'll make the
politics work and which size "sandbox" he really wants to be playing in. (He can
also offer a framework for long-term fiscal sanity by proposing various
"triggers." For example, once unemployment returned to below 6 percent, it might
take a supermajority vote of Congress to run deficits above 2 percent or 3
percent of the gross domestic product.)
The silver lining of today's
crisis is that it should free Obama and his team to think more broadly about
these basic questions. The need to forestall a calamitous economic meltdown, and
the ability to finance large deficits temporarily in ways not foreseeable 15
years ago, means Obama doesn't have to be trapped in the vise that left Clinton
famously grumbling by the end of his first year that he had been reduced to an
"Eisenhower Republican."
Because groupthink and extraordinary time
pressures can lead even talented, well-intended advisers to push the discussion
too narrowly, too soon, Obama should insist on a broader set of options today.
That will assure the next president that he won't have Clinton's regrets in a
few years.
***
Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress,
served as a senior adviser at the Office of Management and Budget under
President Bill Clinton. His new book "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas" will be
published by Times Books in January.
| |
Comments
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/ep_ratio.jpg
Previous to this eight year period, there has always been a larger and larger national workforce every year.
The economic disaster began with the implementation of failed RightWing policies back in 2001, long before the cliff we recently went over.
Earth to Bob: GM sells more vehicles in this country than any other auto manufacturer.
OBVIOUSLY, GM is making the kind of cars that Americans want to buy.
What, did Schwarzenegger legalize pot out there in California when I wasn't looking ?
I wonder why the government couldn't attach some strings to these bailouts. Is that just, like too obvious a question? Or, why couldn't the government make the loans to people itself?
Plus this would help lessen our dependence on foreign oil and help reduce global warming and other environmental problems.
In November, U.S. sales for Toyota Motor Co. dropped 34 percent, and Honda Motor Co. dropped 32 percent.
Whose the loser car companies now ?
Tony's French Revolution analogy should be taken a step further. If Arriana and Bob want the heads of the automakers on a platter, then they should extend the beheading to the UAW.
It's oh so simple to blame the fatcats at the top, but the unionized autoworkers have salaried and benefited themselves out of the marketplace. As painful as it may be, a bankruptcy would allow renegotiation of contracts, both union and general. They can build as many "green cars" as they want, but if the fatcats at the top and the fatcats at the bottom keep raping the industry they will never get out of their rut and they will never compete with other automakers.
This assumption is wrong on three counts (at least). First we are approaching peak energy. Energy is required to do any economic work and we simply will not have anything like the current flow of energy gotten from fossil fuels. A consumption-based (meaning produce, consume, and throw away) economy cannot be sustained in the future, so why try to salvage this one?
Second, a revved up economy means spewing even more CO2 (since fossil fuels are the main source of energy) into the atmosphere. We are already beyond the "safe" level of 350 ppm advocated by Jim Hansen (NASA). The economic downturn, however painful it might be for many people, could actually be buying the whole world a bit of time if we would be wise enough to take advantage of it.
Third, the moral dimension of encouraging people to spend (and borrow to do so) has received little attention. However, the kind of economy we have developed in the west, one that encourages greed and me-first attitudes, is largely at fault in undermining our better moral selves. People feel entitled to their freedoms, but have forgotten their responsibilities in so many ways.
I can understand Tony's blind commitment to conservative ideology. And I can understand Bob's heartfelt desire to help hurting individual cases. Both of these extreme views can be blinded to the fact that stimulus to a bad economic model is a bad thing. But I would think that Matt's centered approach would take that statement and follow it to its logical conclusion. Namely, if all our conventional wisdom about finance and the economy are not telling us what to do and what is happening, could it be that our basic assumptions about the basis of economics might be wrong. Might there not be another way?
Question Everything
http://questioneverything.typepad.com
Another idea would be to create an investment friendly environment and then lower taxes on people who will invest but that's just crazy talk.
We have the opportunity to get off of this treadmill that has lead us to 100 million tons of plastic in our oceans, the sixth largest extinction event in earths history, the polluting of virtually all of our surface waters and as you point out Co2 not just filling our atmosphere but our oceans and soil as well.
Lets start gearing our economy so we can live.
If the four panelists represent the spectrum of political and economic thought we can see why we are actually doomed. Obama has assembled an economic team of neo-classical old hatters rather than seek the new breed of ecological or biophysical economists who actually do understand the problems because they admit that the economy is just a subsystem within the larger ecological system of Earth, what I have been calling the Ecos (roughly equivalent to Gaia but without the mystical flavor).
If Matt or any of the LRC crowd were truly interested in a larger picture with some real explanatory power they would contact people like Herman Daly or Robert Costanza or Charles Hall (or me!) to find out what is really going on in this economic crisis. Their current submission to neo-classical economic theories (and I include Keynsian econ in this category), while well intended is unfortunately misdirected at restoring a broken system. Ah, blinders.
Back in Sept. I posted this blog, "Current events - What's going on in the financial markets???" in response to an article on the Oil Drum. This represents a radically different view of why we are in trouble, and also why we are not likely to return to so-called "normal".
Conventional wisdom is breaking down all around us. Question everything.
The LRC team are as steeped in neo-classical economics as Obama's team. If they really wanted to understand what is happening they would contact the ecological or biophysical economists like Hernan Daly, Robert Costanza, Charles Hall (or me!) to find out how the world really works and why our economic system doesn't.
Last Sept. I posted this blog on why the financial crisis is going down the way it is.
Conventional wisdom is breaking down all around. Question Everything.
This week's show had more light than heat for a change. And there have been some excellent posts here. Obama has put wise if traditional heads in charge instead of futurists, which makes sense with the conservative pundits, bloggers and letter writers poised to pounce on any appearance of dangerous liberal ideas. Since Obama is a smart and serious man, we hope that he will at some point think about these things and how to do something about them.
We have a world where millions of children starve and people die of diseases like cholera that are easily preventable. We have an economy based on borrowing and buying an ever increasing array of gadgets which do not add a huge amount to our well being. The whole reliance on automobiles and resulting sprawl, separation of affluent from poor, loss of farmland and other inefficiencies, is heavily entrenched.
As Blankley said, war ended the depression, and we really have not had a sustainable peacetime economy since. However military Keynesianism is not only destructive but wasteful. Take the amount wasted on the Iraq war. Even if eventually Iraq has a stable government that is better what Saddam did, the cost of the war in money and lives can not have been worth it. And even if you credit ulterior motives like getting another Western foothold in the oil rich Middle East, showing al Qaeda and the Saudis that despite 9/11 we are the most powerfully violent state, and intimidating Israel's neighbors into making peace with it, you would not pay these costs for these results. America risks being bankrupted by war as were the kings of Europe.
Blankley gets in the way, claiming that the Mumbai attack is based on the ideology of radical Islam. This is a new cold war mentality of clash of civilizations, and would support an unrestrained military industrial complex to deal with it. But while the full story remains unknown, it appears that the Mumbai attacks are about turf (do Pakistani Moslems or Indian Hindus get Kashmir?) and perhaps similarly the treatment of Moslems within India itself. These are human issues that can be resolved, not religious and ideological ones which only ends when one side kills the other.
There are many fascinating solutions to our structural economic problems that the present bailout still avoids. Give money to the banks and the banks take it. Give money to GM and they will take it. They will have no incentive to change. Interesting ideas here include starting over with new car companies, accomplishing a similar result by replacing the managers or even owners of old car companies. Americans will still need transportation, be it cars, busses, trains or bicycles. The market won't go away, even if we try to make our cities liveable by bringing jobs paying good wages to their people. Plus as Scheer says, the biggest problem for car companies today is the credit freeze caused by the Ponzi scheme of the finance industry.
To fix mortgages, why not have the government just make mortgage loans to people at low fixed interest rates and for real appraisals based on peoples' real incomes. Declare a moratorium on junk fees by servicers and foreclosure attorneys, and prohibit any foreclosure until after the homeowner has an opportunity to get such a loan. Replace all the bad mortgages with good ones. This will save homes, get the lending money flowing again and get rid of the toxic assets.
We also face the reality of limitations, that fly in the face of our "no boundaries, no limits" mentality. A big limitation is energy. Another is waste, including CO2, whose costs can not be externalized. Dealing with it takes more energy. We also have population issues. There can be too many people like there can be too many deer. Aging societies have fewer children as the costs of childrearing increase. America is importing immigrants to make up the difference, but then is abusing them. Blankley talked last week about how we can't afford health care for everyone, at least without giving up our great imbalance of wealth.
As someone noted, a consumer society does not bring happiness. Nor does a society of capitalist creative destruction where our livelihoods may be the ones destroyed, nor one of rapid social changes that attack the meaning of our lives, pushing many into the fundamentalist dark sides of otherwise humane religions. People who visit impoverished and often conflict filled regions of the non-Western world often comment on how happy and gracious communities of people often are, even as they do without things we can not imagine being without.
They say crisis = danger + opportunity. An unsustainable economy needs to change, hopefully in a way that brings our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren well being rather than disaster. We would like well being and community also, rather than a society dominated by screaming, or shooting, talking heads.
Thanks Stan H for your thoughts as well.
I am deeply frustrated with our societies delusional stance on most of the challenges we are facing. LRC is a good example of intelligent, well-read, thoughtful people basically ignoring the facts because it does not suit their idealogy. Tony is the worst at this; several months back he said that anthropomorphic climate change was a hoax. This makes him one of the biggest conspiracy theorist I have ever heard of. This would entail collusion among thousands of scientists and researchers worldwide. Then to make it worse he went on to rant about the great thinkers in the age of reason, which as I understand it was about basing ones ideas and actions on the scientific method rather then some other non-provable philosophy like religion or cultural bias. Robert replied that scientist got it wrong when they said that the world was heading for an ice age and so they were probably wrong about climate change. Which is very flawed reasoning at best. Arianna was not on the show that week and I don’t remember what Matt said. He certainly did not challenge either Tony’s or Roberts thinking.
With this kind of weird logic how can we ever have a discussion that faces reality? Obama’s team seems to be deeply soaked ideological in the politics that have gotten us to the situation George describes in his blog. Namely, locked in a belief that wealth does not need to be tied to real things but is simply a sort of juggling act. As long as all of the balls stay in the air we have a thriving economy. The trick is keeping them up there. That is why we are told to shop till we drop, it keeps the balls in the air. This is possible when the sources for energy are growing but when they are declining all the juggling in the world does not make an economy
It is clear that energy, food, housing, human and environmental health, and peacefully relations with othrs, are of real value. Our economy should be based on doing all of them efficiently and with integrity. Most of these are the most efficient when done close to home. We need to build a bottom up economy and goverenment as we continue to encourage a global exchange of ideas and information. We could certainly have national and international energy policy and production at the same time because sometimes big energy plants are super efficient. Take a look at this idea for instance.
But we have to find ways to relocalize our lives so we feel a responsibilities and connection to the land we live on and the people we live on it with.
There is an interesting article in the new Atlantic magazine, an interview with the Chinese Finance corporation president who manages their foreign investments. An important person consideering how much we have borrowed from China. He went to Duke Law school and worked in Nixon's old law firm before returning to China. Here is his description of derivatives.
"First of all, you have this book to sell. [He picks up a leather-bound book.] This is worth something, because of all the labor and so on you put in it. But then someone says, “I don’t have to sell the book itself! I have a mirror, and I can sell the mirror image of the book!” Okay. That’s a stock certificate. And then someone else says, “I have another mirror—I can sell a mirror image of that mirror.” Derivatives. That’s fine too, for a while. Then you have 10,000 mirrors, and the image is almost perfect. People start to believe that these mirrors are almost the real thing. But at some point, the image is interrupted. And all the rest will go.
When I told the State Council about the mirrors, they all started laughing. “How can you sell a mirror image! Won’t there be distortion?” But this is what happened with the American economy, and it will be a long and painful process to come down."
"It's oh so simple to blame the fatcats at the top, but the unionized autoworkers have salaried and benefited themselves out of the marketplace."
That would be news to our major competitors in Japan and Germany. Their auto manufacturers face MUCH stronger unions, pay their auto workers HIGHER wages, and provide MUCH better benefits.
Yet, until the current administration drove us into a global depression, the Japanese and German auto manufacturers were still more profitable than the American auto manufacturers.
Obviously, the American unions, the American workers, the American wages, are NOT the problem.
"As painful as it may be, a bankruptcy would allow renegotiation of contracts, both union and general."
Non-starter. More than 80% of potential auto buyers surveyed stated they would not purchase a vehicle from an auto manufacturer that was in bankruptcy.
I don't think the union costs are the only problem but it sure keeps the US automakers at a major disadvantage.
The Auto bailout leaves me in two minds, while I begrudge giving these incompetent giants taxpayer money, the amount they are asking for seems trivial to that being thrown around for the financial firms. And why are the car bosses been held to a degree of scrutiny not applied to the bank bosses?
It is very hard to see what Toyota would do with GM, if you want a model for the future of the American motor industry; I suggest you look at the UK. There is no longer any significant UK owned production, the once great companies have gone bust and the few bits worth saving scavenged by the foreign firms. What there is, is now in reasonably good shape, just run from Japan, Germany, America or India.
"Not sure what they pay in Japan and Germany..."
That's a big part of the problem right there.
"...but Japanese manufacturers in southern non-union US states have labor costs $22 per hour LOWER than big 3 Union shops."
More propaganda.
The spread in only $3 to $4 an hour.
"Not to mention much lower legacy costs for bloated pension plans..."
Nonsense.
The only reason the transplant plants don't have legacy costs YET, is because they haven't been around long enough. Why should those costs to the American manufacturers, which under law are supposed to be vested anyway, be lumped in with the actual wage and benefits costs of current workers ?
"...or super generous healthcare plans."
Again, our major competitors in Japan and Germany are FAR MORE generous with both pay and benefits, yet they were more profitable.
You're simply regurgitating propaganda.
As an interesting adjunct to comments I have read hear, I thought I would add the below link to an article from Truthdig titled The Best and the Brightest Led America Off a Cliff.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081208_hedges_best_brightest/
We need to go back to teaching our young people how to think and not what to think. And we need to encourage a healthy skepticism of authority.
This Heritage article notes that none of that is "legacy" payments (retirement is paid into an account for each worker). The article points out that the labor costs for each of the big 3 is similar even thought they have vastly different numbers of retired workers.
You were the one posting propaganda.
I always cringe when Bob Scheer speaks about depriving the poor autoworkers of their basic health benefits. In reality, the union negotiated benefits have morphed into extravagant packages that the average American worker can only dream of having.
Just using basic common sense, does a job that requires no education and few skills justify $70/hr? Why should workers represented by a powerful union with strong influence on Washington be treated so much more favorably than the average Joe flipping burgers at the local McDonalds, who are getting minimum wage and no benefits?
A friend of mine works as a machinist in a bottling plant, who is highly skilled in repairing the machines. He gets slightly higher pay, but much fewer benefits than the unskilled machine operators who merely load bottles into the machines. The only difference was, the machine operators were represented by the Teamster's union who was much more powerful than the machinist union. My friend complained of the injustice right up until this year when most of the machine operators were laid-off because the company could no longer afford their benefits.
It's economic evolution. The sleaker, more economical company/workers adapt and survive when stress is placed on their environment. The others become extinct.
"Your wrong."
My wrong ???
"The frequent figure bandied around for the costs of big 3 labor is about $70 per hour."
Propaganda.
"This Heritage article..."
The Heritage Foundation is a fake RightWing front group.
"You were the one posting propaganda."
I'm afraid not.
RIGHTGUY,
"It's economic evolution. The sleaker, more economical company/workers adapt and survive when stress is placed on their environment. The others become extinct."
Like AIG, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs....
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Not nearly as extravagant as what hedge fund managers and mortgage insiders got.
Why should the "average Joe" at McDonalds get nickled and dimed? they have no union at all.
You said:
Joe, just because you don't like what Mr. Sherk wrote for Heritage doesn't make it wrong. Here is a Media Briefing book from Chrysler that shows that their worker average UAW compensation was over $74 per hour in '06.
Maybe Chrysler is a bunch of right wing shills too?
Did you even read the Heritage article I linked? All of it's assertions are backed by citations.
If Mr. Obama wants to spread the wealth around, why doesn't he lower the union wages and raise the non-union wages to be commensurate. A particular job is only worth as much as it is capable of earning. If McDonald workers made $70/hr. nobody would be able to afford the $30 hamburgers they made. The same thing is happening with the automobile industry. Something's gotta give.
Most people visualize the Wall Street fatcats as five rich guys raking in everyone's money for their own profit. Much of the money invested on Wall Street comes from everyday, little people...and they lost big time.
People also seem to forget about the lower level workers in the financial corporations who have lost their jobs. There was 27,000 at Lehman Bros. alone, Bank of American will lay off 35,000. Are these people any less worthy than the auto-workers just because they work for the financial industry?
About those five rich guys...they've lost their jobs too. I hope our government criminally prosecutes a few. I'm not holding my breath, though. I laughed at Waxman holding the CEO's of Freddie and Fannie feet to the fire and all the while Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the facilitators, remain in office and even retain their positions on the Banking & Financial committees. What a joke!
for tony: regarding "radical islam" try for a moment to be blindly neutral. have a listen to the 12/3/08 program "middle east in focus"
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/
try to understand one antagonist in the region continually insists that others abide by their beliefs and tosses aside all geneva conventions, united nations agreements, rules of law governing international conflict etc. Ask yourself would you accept his argument just as easily as the counterpart "20 virgins in heaven"?
for robert: what does wagoner/gm have in common with strauss/jdsu, nicholas&samuli/broadcom, broad/aig&kbh, grasso/nyse, lay&skilling/enron, mudd/fannie mae, ...? Answer: they all escaped with profits before implosion.
Yes, there were 2 signatores to the labor contracts - managment and uaw's. I still think a prepackaged bk has benefits. but, a bk judge should insist that all past executives return to the company, in exactly the same proportions, what the uaw relinquishes. If the uaw gives back 30% then inist before taxpayer money is handed out, the past executives return the same 30% of compensation, stock options profits, health and country club beneifits etc. it is time to stop the mentality of "change from now on - $1/yr salary". It's too easy for executives to sign short sighted contracts, cash out by "retiring", and let the next ceo clean up thier mess. Have the bk judge reach back and institute equal sacrafice by all parties.
"Joe, just because you don't like what Mr. Sherk wrote for Heritage doesn't make it wrong."
It's been debunked repeatedly.
And again, The 'Heritage Foundation' is a fake RightWing front group. They are underwritten with the intent to spread propaganda.
"The difference between the financial companies and the automobile industry is if the banks are not bailed out, everything goes down, including the automobile industry."
If the American auto manufacturers go down, the entire economy goes down. The old saying was that the American economy is a three-legged stool. One leg is housing, another leg is auto manufacturing, and the third leg is everything else.
"I laughed at Waxman holding the CEO's of Freddie and Fannie feet to the fire and all the while Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the facilitators, remain in office and even retain their positions on the Banking & Financial committees."
I wouldn't laugh if I were you. Your ignorance is showing. Try reading McClatchy Newspaper's:
PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS, NOT FANNIE OR FREDDIE, TRIGGERED CRISIS
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
I guess anyone that publishes from a particular point of view is propaganda in your view? I guess all of the LRC panelists work for propaganda purveyors then.
"No it hasn't."
Of course it has.
"If it has then please post your source"
Waste of time with people who are drinkin' the Purple Kool-Aid.
I'll give you a couple just for a jumping off point, and perhaps if your fingers aren't broken, you can do a little research from there, and educate yourself, assuming you can put down the Purple Kool-Aid long enough and pay attention:
* Felix Salmon, who set-up the Economonitor blog for 'Roubini Global Economics' (you know, Nouriel Roubini, who long ago predicted this economic disaster the Bushies have created ?):
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/18/the-return-of-the-70-per-hour-meme
* Dean Baker, a Ph.D in economics:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=gm_auto_workers_are_not_paid_7
The first one is simply an assertion with no proof and the same goes for the other one. One even makes up a cost for what health benefits should be out of thin air. Mr. Salmon even tires to infer that the $70 per hour figure is arrived at by including all the costs of retired UAW members which is not true.
Both claim that the hourly rate is only $28 per hour but fail to consider that that the average hourly wage goes up when shift premiums are added in.
Those are just opinion pieces with no basis in fact. Neither cited anything to backup their assertions unlike the Hermitage piece which did.
Won't stop drinkin' the Purple Kool-Aid, unwilling to educate yourself, and gullible as the day is long.
Typical RightWinger.