Robert Reich's Blog

Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

My Photo
Name: Robert Reich

Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.

Friday, July 25, 2008

The Heart of the Economic Mess

The Federal Reserve Board's "beige book" for June and July offers a clear explanation for why the economy has slowed to a crawl. It shows American consumers cutting way back on their purchases of everything from food to cars to appliances to name-brand products. As they do so, employers inevitably are cutting back on the hours they need people to work for them, thereby contributing to a downward spiral.

The normal remedies for economic downturns are necessary. But even an adequate stimulus package will offer only temporary relief this time, because this isn’t a normal downturn. The problem lies deeper. Most Americans can no longer maintain their standard of living. The only lasting remedy is to improve their standard of living by widening the circle of prosperity.

The heart of the matter isn't the collapse in housing prices or even the frenetic rise in oil and food prices. These are contributing to the mess but they are not creating it directly. The basic reality is this: For most Americans, earnings have not kept up with the cost of living. This is not a new phenomenon but it has finally caught up with the pocketbooks of average people. If you look at the earnings of non-government workers, especially the hourly workers who comprise 80 percent of the workforce, you'll find they are barely higher than they were in the mid-1970s, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Per-person productivity has grown considerably since then, but most Americans have not reaped the benefits of those productivity gains. They've gone largely to the top.

Inequality on this scale is bad for many reasons but it is also bad for the economy. The wealthy devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, the very wealthy are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.

This underlying earnings problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found means to live beyond their paychecks. But they have now run out of such coping mechanisms. As I've noted elsewhere, the first coping mechanism was to send more women into paid work. Most women streamed into the work force in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 — to more than 70 percent. But there’s a limit to how many mothers can maintain paying jobs.

So Americans turned to a second way of spending beyond their hourly wages. They worked more hours. The typical American now works more each year than he or she did three decades ago. Americans became veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.

But there’s also a limit to how many hours Americans can put into work, so Americans turned to a third coping mechanism. They began to borrow. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster from 2002 to 2006, they turned their homes into piggy banks by refinancing home mortgages and taking out home-equity loans. But this third strategy also had a built-in limit. And now, with the bursting of the housing bubble, the piggy banks are closing. Americans are reaching the end of their ability to borrow and lenders have reached the end of their capacity to lend. Credit-card debt, meanwhile, has reached dangerous proportions. Banks are now pulling back.

As a result, typical Americans have run out of coping mechanisms to keep up their standard of living. That means there's not enough purhasing power in the economy to buy all the goods and services it's producing. We’re finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever more concentrated wealth.

The only way to keep the economy going over the long run is to increase the real earnings of middle and lower-middle class Americans. The answer is not to protect jobs through trade protection. That would only drive up the prices of everything purchased from abroad. Most routine jobs are being automated anyway. Nor is the answer to give tax breaks to the very wealthy and to giant corporations in the hope they will trickle down to everyone else. We've tried that and it hasn't worked. Nothing has trickled down.

Rather, the long-term answer is for us to invest in the productivity of our working people -- enabling families to afford health insurance and have access to good schools and higher education, while also rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in the clean energy technologies of the future. We must also adopt progressive taxes at the federal, state, and local levels. In other words, we must rebuild the American economy from the bottom up. It cannot be rebuilt from the top down.

135 Comments:

Blogger Arbitrista said...

I've been trying to explain this very basic Keynesian argument to my conservative father for years now, but as usual you've enunciated the point with crystal clarity. I'll have to forward this post to him.

Having said that, isn't there a great deal more "leakage" when it comes to expanded purchasing power because of globalization? Redistributing wealth downwards resulted in considerable growth after WWII in part because the U.S. was a relatively closed economy - the goods and services people were buying with their increased incomes were all produced here, creating a virtuous circle. But now the U.S. is so exposed to the international market, a large proportion of purchases is going to go overseas. How big of a problem do you think this is?

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Betsy Dornbusch said...

I agree. But even bottom-up fixes require the folks at the top of the nation's economy to cooperate and facilitate such change. They won't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, or they would have done it a long time ago. I think, unfortunately, it would take a sharp stab in the pocketbook to motivate them. Who's supposed to poke them? Congress, who relies on their goodwill to get elected? State or city governments, who rely on their presence to bolster local economies? I think the best motivator for the upper classes is for real economic woes to touch them. That would take a long time, if ever. But the "regulars" in the country are out of time. I confess I don't see an escape from this downward spiral. I think we've yet to hit bottom, and I worry about those who must really pay in order to make the top feel real pain.

Interesting blog, Mr. Reich.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Athena Smith said...

Although I agree with many points, I believe that the cultural factor has been left out. I have seen America through the eyes of a foreigner who came to live and work here, and what I have observed is the following: Americans to a great extent have borrowed not to cover needs but luxuries. The consumers' mentality has led many of them to debt that they did not need to accumulate. I have seen it over and over and over, people selling their amost new cars (bought on credit) because a new vesrion with a stupid gadget has come out. I have seen people over and over buy houses far bigger than the ones they need.
I have seen young people leave state A to study in state B (it's almost a cultural must) just to pay out of state fees, for which, they borrow. And kids from state B go to state A for college, (a cultural must for them too)accumulating at times a debt close to $100,000. This is only for starters.
This is a culture of spending beyond your means. Borrowing as if there is no tomorrow.
This is what we have to change.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fr. Reich,

Again, 40% of government tax revenue is provided by the top 1% of income earners. How progressive do you intend to go?

You are correct that increased productivity is the medicine for our problems...we can all consume more if we produce more. But as you say, people can only work so much, so it logically follows that productivity gains will come from increased investment in capital.

The "heart of the matter" is that the dollars that the middle & lower classes do have just don't purchase as much any more due largely to the depreciating dollar, caused to large extent by the huge government debt.

When I was growing up, I did not have an allowance, did not have my own car in high school, my mother did not have $600 earrings, nor 100 pairs of shoes in the closet, and my middle income parents actually spent less than they earned, i.e. they saved. Now, those saved dollars are being depreciated by a government that can not say "no" to spending. And certain people are complaining about inequality, and stirring up class warfare, and claiming that the folks who over spent, well it is really not heir fault. And that the folks who did save now should do the bail outs. Now how is that fair?

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger rod said...

When you have a president, whose first comment on our worst disaster-(9/11) was for people to go shopping, well ,you reap what you sow.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Scott Ferguson said...

"The wealthy devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, the very wealthy are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return."

Doe not this fact - that the benefits ($$) from US productivity gains are being "out sourced" to international markets - tell us that increasing US productivity further will do not one whit of good to Americans. As you have said, productivity gains have been there all along. That is not the problem. It is what is being done with those productivity gains that must be addressed. Short of a massive, socialist-style government intervention, I don't see much that can be done.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Reich would do well to spend less time preaching & more time in the confessional. It was Bill Clinton who signed Bills creating the MESS that has now threatens our economy.
First, for political expediency, the Clinton Administration reduced our principal inflation monitoring measurement, the CPI, by more than a full point (a whopping 25%). What did this do for most American families, Mr. Reich? We know what it did for the Gov't. It allowed our Gov't. to print huge amounts of new money it didn't have to account for.
Still not happy, the Clinton Administration deregulated our Financial system (Repealing Glass-Stegall) WITHOUT putting in place a single body regulatory agency to oversee the Frankenstein it created.
Where were you Bob Reich when these two monumental assaults on our economic well-being were signed into law by Bill Clinton?
Still not feeling guilty? Think about the growth of our hedge fund industry, off shore accounts, derivative creation, leveraged trading.
You're supposed to be an Academic now. Where's the dispassionate academic interest in intellectual honesty?

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger we_are_toast said...

Dr. Reich, with all due respect;
"The heart of the matter isn't ... frenetic rise in oil and food prices. These are contributing to the mess but they are not creating it directly."

Actually, this is PRECISELY the problem. These prices reflect the growing demand for the limited, and in some cases diminishing, basic resources that make up our standard of living. Unfortunately, classical economic theory operates from the premise that there are unlimited resources or substitutes. We still live on a finite planet, no matter what classical economists might think.

"The wealthy devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want."

This is a very important principle; but you failed to look at the other extreme. Poor people around the world spend almost all their income on buying things, but because their income is so low, they don't create much demand at all. But that has changed! We now send $69 billion a month out of the country, foreign governments are no longer willing to deny others the ability to buy things in order to lend to Americans so they can buy.

The only way we can go back to the past "standard of living" is to deny others in the world the ability to compete for the oil, food, and other natural resources that comprise our current standard of living. It Aint goinna happen!
You can talk about productivity, interest rates, wealth shifts, or any of the other classical economic tools, but it isn't going to cause a hidden dinosaur to decay into a new barrel of oil, or another volcano to concentrate a new vein of copper.

No, we need to redefine what a comfortable American standard of living will be from here on out, and most of all, how we can sustain it. The days of prairie palaces, hummers, long commutes, and an increasing population, are over! The American standard of living where we borrow money we can't pay back, to buy things we don't need, to impress people we don't like, must come to an end.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger David said...

@Anonymous says "Again, 40% of government tax revenue is provided by the top 1% of income earners. How progressive do you intend to go?"

But that's fair since that top 1% owns 40% of the wealth and so presumably gains 40% of the benefit from the wars we're funding and companies we're bailing out.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich:

This is a global economy. Do we not want our wealth reinvested into the most productive endeavors, wherever around the globe they might be? Should we expect a lower class individual who achieves upper-class by working hard, to then not reinvest his wealth to receive the highest return possible? American farmers are currently investing in Brazil because yields are so much higher there. The “trickle down effect” from this (which you claim does not exist), includes the benefit of greater food supplies and resulting lower prices for all of us.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Again, 40% of government tax revenue is provided by the top 1% of income earners. How progressive do you intend to go?"

How much of the 40% comes from
investment income? This exposes
the disparity of wealth which is part of the problem. (and can not be talked about)

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger notsofast said...

Athena Smith sums it up nicely; American consumption is pathological. I'll add that "the heart of the economic mess" is state/corporate capitalism that has developed into an economy that needs this dynamic in order to function; materialism and consumption on steroids.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger LVTfan said...

I'd like to share something I came across earlier this morning, which pertains to this:

"An increase in population will, of course, mean more competition for land. It will also mean improved productivity for any given parcel of land. For example, if you operate a restaurant in an area where the population is increasing, you have a larger pool of potential customers to draw on, and the productivity of the property increases. So will the rent. Note that the increase in population is not something the landlord does (even if he is extremely prolific) but something the community does. Nevertheless, the landlord reaps the reward.

"Improvements in technology, whether the moldboard plow in the 10th century or the internet in the 20th, increase the productivity of land. Initially, the benefits of these improvements will go to the user of the land, but eventually they find their way into the rent and hence into the pocket of the landlord. Note that these improvements are not something the landlord does, but something the community does. Nevertheless, the landlord reaps the rewards.

"If the state builds a road adjacent to your property, the value of that property increases. The same is true for any off-site improvement. If your neighbor builds a large building on his piece of ground, the value of your piece of ground is likely to go up. In general, if you buy a piece of vacant ground, and a community grows up around it, the value of your land will increase without you having to do anything. Note that this growth is not something the landlord does, but something the community does. Nevertheless, the landlord reaps the rewards.

"What is common to all three cases is that the community does the work, but the landlord reaps the rewards. This leads to the question of exactly what the social function of the landlord is. We know well what the worker contributes to society, and what the entrepreneur contributes, and what capital contributes. All the things that are made by man are made by these. But land is not made by man and exists quite independently of the landlord. Therefore, we may ask, “What function does the landlord perform, to reap such rich rewards from the labor of others?” One implication of this is that if the worker is to reap the full value of his labor, then he must own an interest in the land he works. This is of course a moral issue, but it is also an economic one. What the landlord gets is wealth without work, which means that somebody else must perform work without wealth. In such conditions, it is very difficult to achieve equilibrium by economic means, and we are forced to call upon the government and the usurers to balance demand.

"This also explains why land, in any place where the population is increasing, will always be the best investment. There will be seasonal ups and downs in the price of land, but the secular trend will always be up so long as the population is increasing. But these seasonal adjustments are themselves a cause of great dislocations in an economy."

This comes from a work-in-progress, at http://distributism.blogspot.com/, but it expresses more clearly than most ways I've seen it described a large part of the dynamic.

Scott, this tells where the wealthiest 1% should invest their 33% of our net worth: in land and natural resources. 5% of us hold 57.5% of America's net worth. How much of that is land value? Hard to say. Our government doesn't seem to think it appropriate to measure it.

But when a single block, a single acre, in Manhattan can be worth $400 million to $1 billion, one might suspect land to be a fairly significant share of the total. (That particular site belongs to a foreign airline, so it doesn't even figure in our wealth concentration data.)

David -- the top 1% of income earners are not the same as the top 1% of wealth holders. Data on the wealthholders is at http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/50-40-5-4-1.htm and shows that the top 1% of WEALTH holders in 2004 received, in 2003, 7.33% of the income [Table 2, line 28]. Now that doesn't take into account the appreciation of their assets -- that income doesn't count for tax purposes, never really gets totaled up, until and unless they choose to sell an asset and decide to declare "capital" gains. [Most so-called "capital" gains are land gains, including natural resources. Capital, like cars and houses, depreciates.] But clearly a lot of appreciation is coming their way!

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

We have one more coping strategy left. Take the kids out of school and put them to work, earning their keep.

As We_Are_Toast argued, resources are limited right now. Sure Sbvor argues that in the future resources will be infinite. And in this he joins a long and esteemed line of soothsayers that have been predicting this Nirvana for thousands of years. Just wait, the land of milk and honey is just up ahead.

But because resources are limited, and capital is expanding at increasing rates, price inflation makes it a stupid idea to invest in infrastructure and people. You can't get a good return on something that can't grow as fast as the money supply.

So the best investments are in inflation. Essentially investing in investment vehicles, driven by recursive and reciprocating debt.

So long as the money supply increases dramatically and outpaces resource extraction, the financial instutions will do best trading the money back and forth between each other, while letting real world industries dry up and die.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I do not disagree with the argument I think there are fundamental questions of personal/cultural judgment which need to be addressed. The home mortgage issues has brought a new focus to this for me, and your comments on the ubiquity of home equity loans reminded me...

Americans need to stop monetizing every piece of property. If people thought of their houses primarily as homes and not as investments there would be a greater aversion to borrowing heavily against them. If cars were seen as transportation rather than as assets people would use them longer. Sure fewer houses would be built and fewer cars sold but we could revitalize the existing housing stock rather than build large inefficient houses in the exurbs with their high cost of ownership and increasingly expensive commutes.

The desire to save a buck at the expense of stability and with higher operating costs is at the root of many of the US's economic woes. It is not about frugality but about the short-sightedness of greed.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need a national wealth tax. The tax should be indexed to the interest rate charged the average individual credt risk. The tax should be proportional to an individuals total wealth. This should include corporations and foreigners.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Brooklyn said...

But why not restrict the standard of living? Why does it always have to increase?

Obviously I'm opposed to inequity, but I see no problem with our standards of living go down, so long as real needs are met. As it is these standards are determined in light of what everyone else in the country and the world has, rather than on what basic level of energy each human being needs to live a healthy life.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Robert Nagle said...

In other news, the minimum wage increase finally took effect yesterday. Now it's $6.55.

In houston where I live we are feeling the effects of not having invested in a decent mass transit system. Urban sprawl, the need to buy cars, and feeling the pinch at every rise in oil price.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger notsofast said...

Anonymous said...
"Where were you Bob Reich when these two monumental assaults on our economic well-being were signed into law by Bill Clinton?
Still not feeling guilty? Think about the growth of our hedge fund industry, off shore accounts, derivative creation, leveraged trading.
You're supposed to be an Academic now. Where's the dispassionate academic interest in intellectual honesty?"

Sounds more like Rubinomics than Reichonomics. Those that didn't like many of these policies and saw more on the horizon left after Clinton's first term. Wasn't Robert Reich a resignee after the first term?

I may be wrong but personal blogs have never utilized a standard of academic and scholarly objectivity. That is an enterprise reserved for their own professional work. Blogs like this represent opinions.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger B. Dewhirst said...

... and people wonder why I think the rich should pay their taxes...

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Lefty Granny said...

FYI "Recent data from the Congressional Budget Office show that the top 1% of received 57.5% of all capital income."
"The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks."
"The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000."

You can find this information at
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html (the WSJ!) and it shows that even if the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, they have more than their share of the assets and income, and are hardly compensating society for the damage they do via ecological devastation (how many huge homes did Kenny Lay need? and his wife wept when she had to sell only one of them!), impoverishment of workers, and other societal impacts too numerous to mention in a comments post.

You need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh who is in the top 1% and looks about as porcine as a rich man can while laughing up his sleeve at all those poor right wingers sucking up his swill.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lefty Granny:

Your quote of the CBO is a bit misleading. The correct statistic is that the top 1% of income earners (not wealthiest) earned 21.2% of all income in 2005. You omitted the finding that this same group paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. In essence, these folks earned 1/5 of all income, yet financed 2/5 of the government...MUCH MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE. This also means that the top 1% of income earners paid about the same amount in federal income taxes as the bottom 95% of income earners.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Athena Smith said...

Brooklyn
"As it is these standards are determined in light of what everyone else in the country and the world has"

I definitely agree that we should consider dropping our standards.I can tell you about the rest of the world, that it lives nowhere close to the way we live here. This past spring my daughter spent a semester in Paris (HUGE MISTAKE) and for a studio of 180 square foot the rent was $1100. Many middle class couples live in small apartments smaller than 500 square foot where they raise two kids. The fact that the Euro has become so strong allows them to take cheap vacations here in the US but that's all. The average European's standard of living is not even close to that of the average American.

As Notsofast said, we are pathological consumers and I would add,in love with grand sizes. We have the largest cars, the biggest refrigerators, the largest stoves, the largest washing machines and dryers and since we are at it, the largest waistlines as well.

It is high time we took a look at individual responsibility. Instead of blaming the government or that legislation or another let us blame ourselves for a change.

To stray off the topic a bit, I would like to add a positive side of living here. We have the best -by far the best- educational system in the world. I have read in this blog how many of you are dissatisfied, but when I compare our schools and the open-gate system we have to that of Europe's or even worse that of China's or India's... we are light years ahead. And although it is true that in international competitions American students score low and Koreans at the top, if you check these kids out ten years later, you will see that the American kid is doing a hell of a lot better in his job than the Korean. Because in the school he was taught to innovate, to do research, and to stay away from memorization. And if he made the mistake of dropping out, he can always go back in. Not the same story overseas.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If American consumers can be described as pathological, perhaps this is the weed that grew from the seeds of using psychological tricks, started in the 50s, to sell junk to TV zombies. It worked. It sold stuff better than any previous advertising. People desired and bought things they didn't need, with money they didn't have. These TV viewers are still clueless as to what drives their compulsions. They are just as clueless to American politics, the coming climate crisis, or the problems of our economy. They will stay that way until they can no longer pay their cable bill. I hope that won't be too late for us all.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Dixon said...

Just this evening I was looking at the website for a foundation that supports families and children's health care needs in "under resourced" communities. Checking their IRS 990, I was struck that their foundatiom's investments were all being held in places like the Caymen Islands and other overseas locations. Their funds, which are in the millions, are all sitting outside the country, doing little good in our economy I suppose. But then their foundation is predicated on the idea of improving the lives of children and families. Seems like it's the very sort of disconnect you're describing here.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger Brooklyn said...

hey anonymous, if you wanna see Dr. Reich in a documentary about the very "psychological tricks" you speak of, go to youtube and watch "Century of the Self." He's got quite a few speaking parts in it, and it's a great film that explores the mental engineering of mass consumption.

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger tiptoe said...

This is an excellent post/article. I'll lead the parade against trickle down.

What many people had to do to bridge the gap and cope was rely on credit. Some refinanced their home and used that to cope. This was before this big wave of problems.

I remember saying long ago that eventually there'd be an uberly, well paid CEO and 2 guys working for him in every company. And slowly over the years it's kinda happening.

I'm no economist, but I have lived through all this. Thank God I raised my kids in the decade of the 1990's. I don't know how I'd do it now. All avenues of coping are gone. And it's not a *poof*. BushCo worked on this for years. We all saw it happening.

Letting the bankers write the credit card, banking & bankruptcy laws was a really BAD idea. They give virtually no interest on money put into their banks, and they charge astronomical fees to folks who can't afford the payments even. I know 2 college educated folks who are now, literally, using their mattresses, and one who's stashed cash in a safety deposit box.

I know about all this because I used plastic to keep us up and going. I'm out from under all that and won't go back. I own no one anything. No one has a strangle hold on me. I buy what I need when I can afford it. It takes time to save up, but that's just how it is. I suppose that contributes to a slower economy. So many folks don't have any income much less disposable income now.

It's grim.

tt

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Blogger tiptoe said...

"Century of the Self." Freud was to psychology as alchemy is to chemistry. "Unconscious" means knocked out. It's sub-conscious.

Let's all let out a primal scream!

There's a lot of truth in the advertising & PR techniques. Wow, how many women now have their own penises.

Interesting series.

tt

Friday, 25 July, 2008  
Anonymous Jojo said...

There's one coping mechanism you forgot about RR: Rob the rich and keep the proceeds.

If the economy keeps going south, this is going to become much more prevalent.

As to "Most routine jobs are being automated anyway."

Yes and once we get those walking robots fully developed in the next 5-10 years, many more jobs are going to be automated, not just the routine ones. For instance, infrastructure repair such as road paving is something that should not be too difficult to program into robots.

Here's an old Wired story:

How Robots Will Steal Your Job
Joanna Glasner
08.05.03
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/08/59882

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Gegner said...

You say true, if our financial apparatus isn't overhauled, our civilization will collapse.

Money, the human construct intended to 'simplify' barter has been perverted beyond its original intent.

We need to put money back where it belongs, it only has 'value' to the individual.

This is not an insoluble conundrum.

Money's primary purpose is that of a 'regulator'.

Wealth is created through labor.

It is only through labor that the individual is able to earn money.

The key here is to eliminate 'income streams' that allow people to exploit others to obtain money without creating wealth.

The current 'housing crisis' should not exist, everyone, after all, needs to 'be' somewhere.

Who builds the house? Carpenters! What do they build it for? A paycheck.

You won't find a single 'builder' who pays their carpenters a 'percentage' of the sale price...so if a paycheck is good enough for the carpenter, who needs the 'builder'?

There is a solution, you merely need to think outside the box.

There are far too many of us now to be ruled by the incompetent.

Gegner

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Gegner,
Great, Money needs to be returned to its original role. Exchange Mechanisem.

Instead we let those that GAME the exchange mechanism ( Goverment of all levels, Wall Street, FEDERAL RESERVE) create the "streams of imcome" that do not create wealth.

Halellujah!
USA goverment lived on less than 13% taxation , when we were growing as strongest nation of the world ( BEFORE FEDERAL RESERVE, PRIVATE CORPORATION, which Dr. Reich want to sell to us as "4th Branch of Government")

Federal reserve is benefiting from borrowing and consumption. That is why we are where we are.

When they saw Americans do not/cannot consume any more, they decided to transfer the wealth to CHINES, they are just larning CREDIT CARD and its powers.

Move To CHINA. Or read
ANTI-SOPITALIST at http://borisc.blogspot.com


Good Trading

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only problem with the theory is that Americans don't make the products we buy anymore!

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger kayxyz said...

In Supercapitalism, however, Prof Reich states that Washington, DC is awash in lobbying money, to the point that middle class will never be heard. We will be left with blogs and 10 point fonts.

The health care crisis has a flip side: government sanctioned euthanasia. Look beyond the Medicare collapse. IMHO euthanasia the next step for baby boomers. Sure, you see ads that Blue Cross/Blue Shield is looking into medical tourism--patients will travel in the Western hemisphere only--to have surgery in Latin American countries, but that may be an empty gesture. Given the cost of everything is sinking, it's common sense that all x-rays should be shipped to India to be read. If US IT jobs go to India, doesn't the American Medical Association need to [admit their racism toward black physicians, which they already have apologized for] and certify the radiologists in India. If we live in a global economy, then everything must be re-defined as global. Of course, the American Medical Association won't kick.

I've posted the URL to Business Week's 2006 article about how bad it will be in the US when the only jobs available are in health sciences.

The book Lawns to Gardens points in a useful direction; the gardeners could be similar to a Peace Corps unit that serves in the mainland US and health care could be part of the deal.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We just need a good war to wipe out 30% of the adult male population. It has always worked in the past........

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger njdoc said...

Mr. Reich, your comments are quite astute. I am wondering why you don't chronicle how this excessive borrowing came to pass. How come you don't criticize the Clinton administration for going to bed with Wall Street. They kept a "hands off" approach during the Tech Bubble, they allowed the Boskin Commission to codify false (and grossly understated) inflation numbers and they allowed the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act. It's obvious now that the curtains have been pulled back, that it is the Wizards of Wall Street who run this country. Bernanke was forced to destroy the dollar and our savings by even more inflation with all these "printing money for bailouts" policies. Where was the Clinton administration during the LTCM bailout (MORAL HAZARD PRIMER)? Where are Senators Dodd and Frank? How come they are not standing up to Wall Street? It seems that the Democrats only stand up for the little guy on Wall Sreet! It's very very sad.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger LVTfan said...

I don't want to take from the rich -- or anyone else for that matter -- that which they themselves created.

But I think it is entirely just for society to relieve them of that which the community together created -- and that doing that through taxes on what the classical economists called "land" is entirely appropriate, just, right, moral, ethical and fair.

And further, that to leave that value in private pockets -- individual, trust, REIT, philanthropies, endowments, pension funds, corporate, families, private equity, sovereign wealth funds, whatever! -- is wrong, unjust, unethical, poverty-creating, thievery of the first order! And is the source of many of our most serious social and economic and now even environmental problems.

The commons belong rightly to all of us, and we must not permit their privatization. Much of our economic mess stems from this. Straighten out that, and many of these problems will evaporate.

Those who own our choice land and our natural resources don't need to work for a living. Things are set up so that we pay them for access to what we need. We need first to see it, second to share that observation, and third to correct it. We ought to be paying the commons, not paying them and then subjecting ourselves to taxes of various kinds to finance our common spending, which, largely makes the land more valuable so that we pay them more next year, or our children must pay more if they are impertinent enough to want a place to live!

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not-so-fast, Interesting, I'll conced Boskin, especially because Mr. Reich DID choose to leave all the trappings behind. But Glass Steagall was not repealed until 1999.
Mr. Reich CHOSE to not appear before Congress in opposition to the blanket repeal of Glass Steagall or the modification of it to require oversight. Did he not see the obvious ramifications of unleashing Wall St. on our economy? Hard to believe any caring, socially-minded observer could have missed this!
Lastly, I agree Blogs fwd opinions, but the ones worth reading bring a strong foundation.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the deleveraging $1 QUADRILLION dollar derivatives bubble play no role in this? Sounds like the white elephant in the room to me.

www.TakeBackTheFed.com
www.xFed.mobi (mobile)

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

The tax question is quite the conundrum.

Do we charge what's fair to the individual? Or do we charge a sliding scale, favoring the poor or the rich?

We've enjoyed trickle down economics for decades now, and the US is getting sucked dry. The rich have more dollars, but their dollars are worth less. Is it worth it to double your income if your doubled income is worth less? For many, this seems to be the case. Chasing higher numbers is the name of the game.

A bottom up economy would enrich every sector of society. Even the wealthy would be better off if the US economy was bustling with productivity and well paid workers.

But that's not how we look at it, is it? We're taught that competition is better than cooperations and this is drilled into us at an early age. It permeates our thinking about sports, politics and even economics.

We're a nation divided by teams and we believe that we can only win if the other teams loses.

But a healthy economy and a prosperous nation needs all of it's citizenry to be winners to stay on top.

Everywhere I see this as an Us vs Them situation. The middle class and poor have to lose for the wealthy to win, or the wealthy have to lose for the middle class and poor to win.

We didn't used to be that way. There was a time not long ago when Americans had a higher standard of living for doing less, and the wealthy were still wealthy. Now we paint the situation that existed then as being destructive to our nation. If we were to go back to a similar legal and regulatory climate, we're told it would destroy one class or another. That in order to be fair to one class, you have to destroy another.

Taxes in my opinion are a much smaller problem than runaway money production. Our government's current binge of spending borrowed monies coupled with low interest rates and soon, trillion dollar bailouts, works out to be a tax on the middle class and poor. It drives wage stagnation, while forcing the prices of every product higher.

The wealthy, though the dollars from recursive financial investments that are destructive to society at large keep growing, see the value of those dollars rapidly decline.

So what are we working to become, a nation where the wealthy are trillioniares, the average worker earns $50k, gasoline costs $20/gal and actual unemployment is at 50%?

Would this be good for the wealthy? Is this a goal worth working for?

Current trends seem to be set in stone. Food and fuel prices are following the ratcheting pattern predicted by short supply and high demand. With prices rising until countered by demand destruction, then later rising again.

The media is making a big deal that gasoline in under $4.00 gal now. Woo Hoo! When Bush entered office it was barely over a dollar a gallon. Soon the media will celebrate when gas drops under $5 gal after being %5.50.

The common man sees the truth in the pocketbook. $4.00 or $4.50 is still a steep price with stagnant wages and high debt. For the wealthy, it's hardly more than a conversation starter. They don't even pump their own fuel. Bush doesn't know how much gasoline costs, because his profits from selling oil are so high, that his staff doesn't even need to bother telling him how much it costs or how much he buys. There's no need for such things to interest him.

And as energy supplies go flat, the population grows, still new high rises go up in my city. City taxes keep going up, to counter the slow economy. City and commercial energy consumption continues to rise, driven by cheap finance, forcing the workers to cut back.

And to top it off, area cities in the D/FW Metroplex have started enacting pet taxes. They are hurting so bad that we now have to register our pets, and pay an annual tax on them.

So where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

WeaselDog,

As you know, I have never argued that “the future resources will be infinite”.

But, as is demonstrated by this chart from this post (wherein all the sources for the data are documented and linked to), we do have far more hydrocarbon resources than your side would like to admit.

And, things like coal liquefaction and oil shale are not included in this more rational EIA analysis of Peak Oil.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Sbvor, those are are still unproven solutions for the future. Maybe in the future, they'll pump millions of barrels a day.

Maybe they'll pan out and we can use them in the future to increase our population further.

How does that solve our problems today?

And as we lose our edge sciences and education, how will this oil supply help us bridge the gap to exploiting the unknown next energy source?

And can these sources of oil bring the world back to 3% per annum oil production growth? Or will they simply slow the slide?

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Sbvor and lets entertain the idea that US slides downhill for twenty years, then those future supplies really start to ramp up.

Will the global marketplace assume that Americans should use that oil, or should it go to the highest bidder with the strongest currency?

Isn't likely that the Chinese or some other nation will be willing to pay Exxon a higher price for it than the American consumer with a dramatically devalued dollar?

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More remarkably asinine Keynsian claptrap. It's amazing anyone is still spouting this garbage after the 70s.

More consumption is NOT the solution. It is the problem.

All Keynsians want to do is force people to spend and to avoid savings by debasing the currency.

The whole ideology is a recipe for rampant inflation and recession.

We've seen this movie before and we know how it ends, and it ain't pretty folks whatever this pseudo-economists would like to tell you

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

WeaselDog,

1) Coal liquefaction was done on a commercial scale well over half a century ago. Today, the Sasol coal liquefaction facility in South Africa “meets about 28% of South Africa's annual fuel needs”.

2) I just discovered I need to update my chart.

It turns out Oil Shale extraction is not merely “fully proven on [a] test scale”, it is fully proven on the commercial scale and has been in commercial operation in Brazil since 1980.

Elsewhere, Oil Shale extraction has been done on a commercial scale since at least 1924.

3) So, using only fully proven technologies, we can produce 5.5 TIMES as much oil as Saudi Arabia!

4) Like it or not, it’s a global economy and oil is a global commodity. We can stick our heads in the oil sands or we can do our part to improve the World Oil Balance.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

weaseldog:

Much wisdom in what you say.

I still maintain that the root of the problem is, the world over, how do we exhibit success, power and influence? Via wealth! There seems no other measure that satisifies the ego; the competitive urge; the final question of who wins.

It is ironic, if not pathetic, that competition has been the driver of much of our economic and cultural growth. For years we controlled most of the resources to be employed in the competitive economic race. Not just the raw materials but the productive capacity and know-how to lead the world in that race.

There is no doubt that competition can bring out the best in humans. At the same time, as the game heats up, it can bring out the worst. Companies, rather than continuing to attempt to make a better widget, begin to seek to swallow up competitors and thus better control their particular markets. Antitrust laws were established to limit that kind of activity. Alas, it often seems they have been remanded to the dust bin of history. Global competition has surfaced as the rationale for establishing monolithic corporations and government regulations continue to resemble nothing but stacks of unused paper in the face of that rationale.

Corporate conglomerations can be the least of the problems. We have seen instance after instance where competition drives a desire that "slips the surly bonds" of fairness and legality.

Cooperations, or cooperative ventures, certainly have much good to offer, but they require a commonality of purpose and goal structures. They can work very well in small communities of similarly inclined parties where the goals are mutual beneficence. On larger scales and even those small ones, competing ideas will begin to vie for limited resources and competition will once more take hold.

The energy dilemma is a case in point. In the long term it clearly makes sense to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. Even given the extremely excessive oil company profits is it really the best solution in the short term for all those to be invested in perfecting alternative energy options? We have to get through the short term before we can enjoy the long term. To the terminally ill, tomorrow begins and ends with each dawn. Jesus, I'm beginning to sound like sbvor. Argh!

Unless we are to consider the nationalization of critical industries then it would seem that government regulation and taxation are the only means to collectively circumvent the competition for limited capital and to redirect its use to the best mix among all options. I realize that granting that responsibility to government may be folly but what else do we have?

Competition is not only taught to us from early ages, it is at the very core of our existence. Those who came to this country initially, competed with the elements to get here. Once here they competed with more elements and then the Native Americans to achieve a new life. Most were misfits, social or religious, who fled here after competing with the societies they hailed from. Our Revolutionary War was a competition against tyranny. I guess it is not a stretch to state that the whole history of mankind has been built around competition. Survival of the fittest is competition. Maybe the good news is that death or conquest is no longer the final result of failing at a competition.

I don't see how we rid ourselves of an almost innate concept. The best solution I can see is to try and temper it; control it; make it work for us. A punitive, progressive tax structure would seem a start. The opposers of taxing the rich heavily, always argue that taxing something is the way to get less of it. Is that not the goal? All of us dream of great wealth. Few of us strive for it. Most are happy with a decent income that provides for our families and their futures.

A more progressive tax rate structure will not make a huge dent in income disparities but it does alter the landscape. With a 90% tax rate for incomes beyond a certain level we would likely see a reluctance to earn above that level. That could cause many CEOs to only work one quarter a year, not necessarily a bad thing, but it might lead to a more equitable shift in the distribution of a limited wage supply if coupled with tax incentives to increase lower level wages.

Globalization has created a whole new model and I am concerned that there is no going back.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Art,

1) Competition is a Natural Law, just like the law of Supply & Demand . Natural Laws can never be repealed. Any attempt to do so only creates perversions and catastrophes.

2) Globalization is nothing new.

If anything, the world may have been more globalized prior to World War I than it is today.

But, don’t take my word for it, ask PBS.

Many in this forum could also learn a thing or two from the comparing and contrasting of Keynes vs. Hayek which PBS offers in that presentation.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight...grow up in a three bedroom, 1 bath ranch in blue collar town. Study really, really hard. Get into a great college and have arguments with your parents about whether or not you can go because it will be too expensive. Borrow the money. Study really, really hard. Get a good job. Work really hard. Get into a great B-school. Study really, really hard. Get a good job after B-school and work really, really hard. Achieve some success, save some money, become one of those top 1%ers. Give it all back because it's not fair for me to have it and someone not to have it.

Cry me a freaking river.

Am I greedy? You bet. My question is, why aren't you? I worked hard, pulled myself up and feel very strongly about holding onto it. I'm thrilled with the life I can give my children and recognize how fortunate I am.

Now, is there a growing wealth gap? I'm not sure how much of the hysteria on this blog is a People Magazine-CEO worshiping culture phenomenon and how much is reality. I think it probably depends on where you live.

It is definitely true in places like Boston, New York, DC, LA and Frisco. Not so much in Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc.

If there is a wealth gap, then let's try and figure out the root cause. Is it economic policy as some say or is it something more fundamental? Maybe we have a skills gap where the skills that once guaranteed a middle class existence are no longer what are required? Maybe we should evaluate how our current educational structure does or does not provide the new required skills, come up with a gap analysis and figure out how to fill in those gaps? Maybe we should stop spending so much money on committees and bridges to nowhere and all the other nonsense that congress drives and put it into closing those gaps?

Anonymous Matt

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Matt,

1) AMEN!

2) Dr. Perry has confirmed a portion of your thesis here and here.

3) Leftist Class Warriors ignore the fact that few Americans live their entire lives in any given quintile. I have happily lived in each of the bottom 4 quintiles (never the top). In retirement, I am happily living in the bottom quintile (by choice).

Of course, Obama’s promise to nearly double the tax I pay on the very first dollar of my meager annual budget (and every dollar thereafter) means I may yet have to resort to eating cat food.

I would much rather allow the top 1% to enjoy their prosperity than to indulge the Marxist idiocy of Class Hatred and wind up eating cat food!

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger B. Dewhirst said...

Quintile of income, perhaps, but not of wealth.

If you really wish to avoid a class war, you can stop persecuting one against the poor any time now, SVBOR.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

B.[S.]

I think you meant prosecuting.

But, I would be eager to hear how it is that I am “persecuting” a class war “against the poor”.

Are you arguing that in terms of classical Economic Marxism or the more “modern” angle of Cultural Marxism?

You see, Mr. B.[S.], the REAL “intelligentsia” among Marxists long ago abandoned classical Economic Marxism.

Even Marxists know classical Economic Marxism is a failed strategy. They, themselves, long ago tossed that nonsense on the ash heap of history (soon to be joined by Cultural Marxism, aka Political Correctness).


Come on! If you’re going to play the Marxist card, at LEAST get up to date (before getting tossed where you belong).

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's one problem with your solution:

The IQ of the majority of people hovers very near both sides of 100.

Only a relative handful of people have the brain power to benefit from higher education.

Indeed, we send too many Americans to diploma mills as it is, who afterwards spend most of their careers covering up their incompetence.

Human evolution has a long way to go before the majority of people have the native brainpower needed for this brave new world of technology.

Not to mention that even some smart people (perhaps even most) are unhappy at desk jobs.

I'd rather be hunting and fishing, myself--but long gone is the hunter-gathering economy, unfortunately for suffering mankind.

Bring back blue collar jobs. So what if electronic gizmos are more expensive? Most are a waste of time and resources and make our lives overly complex and miserable.

Or so what if clothes become expensive (how many darn clothes do you need, anyway)?

Men should be lumberjacks, carpenters, farmers, construction workers, etc! Women should gather, cook, sew, and raise children.

Such is our nature.

Depart from human nature-and as we have now, you will need shrinks and tranquilizers.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger Brooklyn said...

Hey sbvor,

In America -- unlike England -- we put the punctuation inside the "quotation marks." You terrorists disgust me.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/marks/quotation.htm

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sbvor:

One of the reasons that shale oil in the western US hasn't been exploited is that the process uses a great deal of water which is often scarce. And, of course, the price per barrel of oil was too low. Oil's up now, but there's still a limited supply of water.

'Whiskey's for drinkin', water's for fightin'. I'm pretty sure that millions of people would rather have water than slightly cheaper gas. Sometimes politics trumps money.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Anonymous,

1) I don’t share your elitist attitude as to who can achieve what in academic endeavor. IQ does little more than predict how easily the achievement may come. Some may have to work harder than others, that’s all.

2) If you want more blue collar jobs in America, you should join me in advocating for “Drill Here, Drill Now”.

3) Yes, water consumption is a legitimate, but hardly insurmountable, issue regarding Oil Shale development. It is well discussed here, beginning on page 72 (as Adobe Acrobat sees it).

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger B. Dewhirst said...

As I've already explained, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, not a Marxist, Sbvor.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't that we can accomplish much with the high level of corruption within the two major political parties. Its a waste of time to consider a major economic overhaul until the financial, Ag and eductional sectors that continue to feed off the Federal pipeline have been cutoff and proper controls over federal spending have been put in place, otherwise nothing but waste and mismangement will be the outcome.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

I just discovered this page.

I’m still evaluating it, but…

Thus far, it appears to be quite good in providing a panoptic view of our energy options.

As I have always said , there is no one solution to our energy issues. Drill Here, Drill Now is just one essential facet of what must be a far more comprehensive solution.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger Brooklyn said...

Hey sbvor, is one of the facets to reduce consumption?

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Brooklyn,

Yes, and, domestically, as this chart from this source shows, that is already in motion, without any “assistance” from government.

World demand, however, will continue to grow.

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression


Inequality of wealth and income
Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)[22]:

As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.]

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations.

But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants.

In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low.

Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time.

Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy.

Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world.

This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.

Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed.

And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay.

Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.

This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression.

Marriner S. Eccles

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

The Recession of 2008 That Wasn’t?

Saturday, 26 July, 2008  
Blogger Bruce Barnes said...

hvnnHalf in Ten plans to reduce poverty in the United States by 50 percent within 10 years. Under the leadership of Senator John Edwards. Taxation plays a bigger roll in this plan than Senator John Edwards envisions.
From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half
By The Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty | April 25, 2007

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html

”Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line. Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose their jobs or face health emergencies. Poverty imposes enormous costs on society. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. In a world of increasing global competition, we cannot afford to squander these human resources.”

Our nation has seen periods of dramatic poverty reduction at times when near-full employment was combined with sound federal and state policies, motivated individual initiative, supportive civic involvement, and sustained national commitment. In the last six years, however, our nation has moved in the opposite direction. The number of poor Americans has grown by five million, while inequality has reached historic high levels.”

The first logical step in this project should be to properly define Poverty. I found this editorial in the Houston Chronicle.

“July 25, 2008, 10:06PM
A poor measure
Let's modernize the definition of poverty. Better information will yield better anti-poverty results
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
On Thursday, workers who are paid the federal minimum wage got a little salary boost. As the second of a three-step increase that will take the nation's minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, this week's 70-cent rise brought baseline hourly pay to $6.55, only slightly closer to being a living wage.
For the struggling Americans known as the working poor, the bump in pay has got to be welcome. But no one should fool himself about how much relief an extra few cents an hour will mean to lean budgets pinched tight by the rising costs of fuel, food, housing and health care.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposes to tackle the poverty problem from a different angle. In mid-July, Bloomberg's office announced the city would employ a much broader method of measuring poverty than the one used since the mid-1960s by the federal government. Congress should carefully consider the merits of the New York plan.
The federal standard is based on data from a 1950s-era study that showed the poor spent roughly a third of after-tax wages on food. Since then, the government has simply tripled the annualized cost of groceries to determine the baseline income a family would need to live above the poverty line. That calculation has become increasingly divorced from the reality of American household finances. Bureau of Labor Statistics show only an eighth of a modern family's take-home pay is spent on food.
Under the federal formula, the official poverty line stands at only $20,444, an obviously outdated number. It's hard to imagine how four people could live on that for a year in Houston, where the cost of living is relatively low. It seems nearly impossible to get by on that in New York, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for an average of $1,318 a month.
By contrast, the Bloomberg method would include the cost of child care, housing, clothing and other expenses the federal formula ignores. But the mayor's plan also would consider income not included in the federal calculation: benefits, such as the earned income tax credit, food stamps and housing subsidies, that improve impoverished families' bottom line.
This more comprehensive view of family finances offers different conclusions about who is poor. Bloomberg's formulation shows fewer New York City residents living in extreme poverty, but it raises the overall poverty rate to 23 percent, compared to only 19 percent under the federal poverty guideline. A greater number of elderly are categorized as poor under the mayor's scheme, mainly because the new formula acknowledges seniors' medical expenditures.
One need not be an economist to understand that this is a more accurate way to measure poverty, one that can better target aid to the poor and lift families into the middle class. It can reduce wasteful spending on ineffective programs based on faulty information.
On July 17, U.S. House members held hearings to mull a revamping of the federal poverty gauge under a bill filed by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. With no similar Senate bill, little progress is expected this legislative session. But at least the ball's rolling.
"I am a big believer in the saying, If you can't measure it, you can't manage it,” Bloomberg said of his plan. "So just as we need a more creative, more vigorous approach to fighting poverty, we need a more accurate method of assessing whether we're making any progress."
On this one, Bloomberg's right on the money.”

Second - eliminate the payroll taxes or give a personal exemption for the first wages up to the poverty guideline. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, while the rich are limited to the first $102,000. Reduction of the payroll taxes can prevent the welfare trap. The welfare trap theory asserts that taxation and welfare systems can jointly contribute to keep people on social insurance. This is also known as the unemployment trap or poverty trap.

Third – establish “Universal Health Care.” No one in the modern world ever goes bankrupt because of medical bills, except in the United States of America, and no other country spends as large a share of its economy on health care as the United States.

Forth - Tax all income the same whether it is made in China, London, or New York. Corporations are not taxed on foreign profits until it is brought back into the Untied States therefore, companies reinvest money and build plants off shore to delay or avoid paying taxes.

Fifth - Repeal the dollar for dollar tax credit for foreign taxes paid. The U.S. taxpayer should not be subsidizing companies to move jobs to foreign countries.

These five items should be added to the National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Brooklyn said...

I guess, sbvor, I just don't think it's worth it to drill holes in the land and spill oil into waters offshore -- both of which, despite improvements in technology, will still inevitably happen -- just to satisfy a glutton culture. My neighbor hops in her car to drive three blocks to the grocery store -- and then can't stop wondering out loud why she can't lose weight. I feel like saying, use those tree-trunk legs of yours girl!

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Tom Simon said...

Bob, glad to hear on Meet the Press that Obama is going to seek your counsel on the economy.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

Good suggestion for I am opposed to taking your word for anything.

I did not view the PBS program but if you research a little further you will find that the US was not a big player in the globalization taking place from 1870-1914. Therefore the comparison becomes somewhat moot and just one more example of your unending desire to be the final word on everything.

Competition is a means not a natural law. Survival may be the natural law that drives a need for competition at times but it is not a constant. At the lower levels of our biological world the drive for survival requires entities to compete for life yet we often find some fleeing from threats rather than competing with them.

In the human world we have the ability for rational thought, supposedly, at least some of us. We can and have sought problem resolution without outright competition but rather for mutual satisfaction and existence.

In the natural world many species coexist without competition. Only when survival comes into question do these species compete. Competition is a contest between two or more rivals. All living things in this world are not rivals. Competition is an effect, not a cause.

In the economic world, a manifestation of we humans, competition becomes the end all. Companies compete with their commercial rivals not necessarily for survival but for greater rewards. Executives seek greater pay than that paid to their employees not for survival but to exhibit greater success and, often assumedly, greater wisdom.

Soon we see executives competing over higher and higher pay as a one-upmanship game to attain more celebrity status. As this game progresses we see the pay for the little people fall by the wayside because there are few kudos for paying your employees more.

Of course they are not left with nothing. Most of the time they get an email or speech thanking each of them for their contributions to the company's success.

We are all in that handbasket and someone best understand that as income equality drifts downhill the handbasket becomes unstable.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Brooklyn,

If you are concerned about environmental issues, you can start by examining this chart from this source and then read this.

The first chart proves that Mother Nature contributes FAR more petroleum products into the world marine environment than offshore drilling EVER has.

The environmental issue is a non-issue!

A continued world oil imbalance will result, at BEST, in continued sluggish growth in world economies. We’re not yet in a recession (much less a depression). But, if you want to see a REAL recession, keep on saying “NO” to drilling for more of the fuel that (like it or not) drives the entire world economy.

Or, wise up and join me in advocating for “Drill Here, Drill Now” as one critical facet of a more comprehensive energy solution.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger kayxyz said...

Lobbyists: gotta love this. In August 2003 issue of Fortune magaziner, an article highlighted the lobbying firm of Fierce and Isakovitz, "devoted to keeping medical profits as high as possible." The firm killed the Patient Bill of Rights that Ted Kennedy and John Edwards sponsored. Don Fierce, "old style politico and friend of Karl Rove," and Mark Isakowitz, a 34 year old from Ohio.

I know that someone named Blalock left the Bush administration to join Fierce, Isakowitz; you can Google to find out.

Today, Raleigh, NC, News and Observer, page 7A, "New lobbyist reports detail millions in donations." Guess who is mentioned: Fierce, Isakowitz, and Blalock. "We are 100 percent behind McCain, said Kathryn Braden Huffard, a lobbyist at F, I and B, whose clients include Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant."

Of course, Obama have been give more total dollars by lobbyists than McCain. But where does the lobbying stop? We've now got the middle class--without jobs, without health care, without homes-- relegated to posting on blogs in 9 point font. Where does the line get drawn with lobbying money?

Or does the American middle class need to establish a new US capital?

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

kayxyz:

When it runs out?

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger FirstForty said...

Mr. Reich, your explaination here is a bulls eye. As you meet with Barack Obama in the next few days, I hope you can convince him that this kind of common sense explanation should be incorporated into his base message. It is the best and easiest to understand explanation of our current situation I have seen. If he can use this story line, there is not question most of america will understand and be ready to take bottom up seriously.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

Plaudits for your achievements. One can but guess that your salary level is badge of honor for all your hard work. Truthfully I find that as many age they look back to their college days and remember studying hard when actually most of them partied harder.

I would suggest to you that accounting type people do not really work hard. Try working on a factory floor, on your feet 6 or 7 hours a day, tied to an assembly line that cares little if you have a headache or just don't feel good. Try working in a retail store on a Saturday and scrambling to serve as many customers as you can because in many instances your paycheck depends on it. Rushing around from customer to customer delivering good customer service, a must, and rushing to the stock room to see if you have those pumps in red. Try working as a nurse in an emergency room where your every move might mean someone's life or death. That's hard work. Balancing debits and credits, perhaps honorable, don't hold a candle.

I realize that attending meetings is hard but the hard part of that is staying awake. Of course spending hours on the phone with your boss explaining why working capital came in below budget can be taxing. But often those situations are why you hire clerks and analysts.

Do you think you work harder than those part-time clerks on the floor of your stores? Or maybe the janitors who keep your stores clean? Likely some of your store managers work longer hours for far less pay than you do.

I'd be sure that you are satisfied with the corporate annual merit increases of 4%. Why wouldn't you be? It adds to your pay, assume you make in the range of $400K, $16,000/year. Your analyst who earns $50K a year gets a rousing $2000/year increase. Your's adds directly to your discretionary income, his likely maintains his disposable income, at best. Given current total inflation those clerks on the floor probably went backward in purchasing power.

Now of course you worked hard in your younger days and are much more deserving. That you might be a reasonably nice looking person with an outgoing personality I'm sure had nothing to do with getting you through the interview process. We all know that interviews focus only on credentials. And we all know that luck never enters the picture when getting chosen for a job or a promotion. Of course sucking up to bosses exponentially improves your promotion chances.

That you had the foresight at a young age to learn the value of education and hard work is, perhaps, a testimony to your brilliance or your maturity. Others, due to a variety of influences or the lack thereof, come much later to that realization, some never do. Life doesn't come with a remote and a "pause" or "rewind" button. The judgmental mistakes or misteps of youth have remanded many to the less than hallowed halls of the warehouse. Starting a family too early, while maybe emotionally satisfying, can create almost insurmountable obstacles to progress for those with less perserverance to move forward.

No doubt those who overcome should gain greater rewards and no one denies you that. But how much is enough? How much is fair if many of those below you, no less good people, no less religious people, especially no less hard working people, can barely make enough to get by and raise a family.

Now we can level the playing field a couple of ways. We can begin to understand that mounting earnings differentials is unfair and remedy that situation. Or we can play out the survival of the fittest game by providing guns to everyone and let a real game begin. Of course you would have an AK 47 to my .22 caliber pistol but the game would rely on a more realistic measure of success. Likely you would hire a proxy and let him play the game for you but even then things could be fairer since I may possess better skills than your proxy. And those skills would not have come from B-school.

No one argues that managers and executives shouldn't make more money than factory workers and store clerks but their has to be a balance if we are all to progress as a nation. Top loading a finite resource to a handful while the masses get dribblings does little for the overall economy and wreaks havoc on the lives of those less fortunate.

I did not attain your level of success. Maybe if I followed your model I wouldn't have for you may have far more talent than I do. I was late coming out of the box. I graduated at 31 years of age. I never went to B-school because I worked full-time with a part-time accounting practice and provided for a family all the while I was in school and after I was done I wanted to enter the fray and put any advanced education on the backburner. It's still there.

By the way, I didn't study hard.

My main claim to fame was that my wife never had to work. She dabbled in some avocations, hobbies, providing spending money for her - a good thing because the Broad knew how to spend money - but she never had to work to contribute to our fair-to-middlin lifestyle.

Due to her illness I had to hang up my career growth potential at age 53. I took a huge salary cut and went from management to an analyst job. I was paid decent for the job I had, can't complain. My only issue with my employer was that I was lumped in a job classification with a number of others and as you know that limited the salary range potential. In my job I saved my company, literally, $100,000 a year, on average, but received no more increase than the rest in our classification. My employer, actually my boss knew that they had me by the gonads because of my situation so no need to reward me for my contribution. Necessity can be the mother of greed as well as invention.

Now we can look to those "gaps" in education or "middle class" job requirements. We can find them and seek to correct them and realign the directions of our youngsters. But what exactly are today's "middle class" earnings requirements? What educations are necessary to attain "middle class" jobs and earnings? How do we redirect two or three generations already in the workplace toward "middle class" earnings and jobs?

We produced a boatload of computer science college graduates in the 80s and 90s, many with engineering undergraduate degrees. What was the plight of many of those? Outsourcing and Independent Contractor status with no benefits. After a couple of decades of great earnings and job opportunities many of them ended up in the same boat as the displaced factory workers, all practicing their elocution of "Welcome to Walmart".

There are no life prognosticators, no weathermen to tell us that after years of education and work experience your profession will disappear or seriously subside. Nobody offered advanced warning to the factory workers who lost their jobs to plant relocations overseas that they better learn frugality and gain other skills. Most companies offered meager severance pays and retraining programs. Consider how easily you could go back to school and learn health sciences or biogenetics. Consider that after your retraining you would enter into a competition with youngsters half your age for entry level jobs paying no where near your current earnings.

Of course, you, as I, chose a profession which will likely always be in need, bean counting. Now I can find you millions who would ask why, but facts is facts. On the other hand if we continue on our current path the size of the need for we of the green eyeshades may dwindle and your current salary may be but a fleeting remembrance.

It is time for all our leaders, political, religious and business to realize that the direction we're heading is disastrous for our nation. If the goal is merely to expand the Monopoly game to the four corners then folks in your strata may weather the storm. I would suggest learning Chinese though. And consider that AK 47.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

I think this image would make a very appropriate party seal for the “Bottom[s] Up” campaign!

Just substitute Kool-Aid for beer and you’re there!

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

So far we have commentators NotSoFast and B. Dewhirst who admit to being Socialists.

Anybody else want to fess up?

You know what they say…
Confession is good for the soul!

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

Gracious! You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Athena Smith said...

I see some are shifting slowly towards the McCarthy era.
I am not surprised to see this trend from the same group of people who have condoned torture. Who have also failed to see the fine line between being a bully and being a leader.
I think we should try to avoid fighting with the pigs in the mud.
You know what they say..
We get dirty and the pigs enjoy it.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Athena,

It comes as no surprise to see you maligning and smearing me in the exact same manner that your party maligned and smeared McCarthy.

I know you won’t, but if you did happen to care to learn the truth about the single most viciously and dishonestly maligned American ever, you could start by reading this book.

Here are a few comments from that last link:

How liberals invented the myth of McCarthyism -- "the greatest Orwellian fraud of our time" -- to prevent questions about their own patriotism

Why the much-maligned Joseph McCarthy was "indispensable" in the fight against Communism. Why conservatives who concede that he "went too far" are misguided dupes of left-wing propaganda

Why the primary victim of outrageous persecution during the McCarthy era was . . . McCarthy himself. How liberals hid their traitorous conduct by making him the issue -- and by doing to him everything they falsely accused him of doing to them

Why the idea of a bowed and terrified liberal minority during McCarthy's "Reign of Terror" is plain poppycock. Proof that, then as now, all elite opinion was against him

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" The incredible facts behind this rebuke of McCarthy by attorney Joseph Welch -- and how it proves only the liberals' lack of honesty

How the media's savaging of McCarthy -- which literally drove him to an early death -- foreshadowed their later treatment of liberal enemies like Ken Starr and Linda Tripp

Defining patriotism down: how liberals have twisted it to mean little more than the "right to dissent" against any action taken by your own country

Alger Hiss, Liberal Darling: How, despite massive evidence of his guilt, the entire liberal establishment ferociously defended him against charges of treason -- and tried to destroy the true patriots who tried to expose him

Why, for the left, no amount of evidence proving anyone was a Soviet spy could ever be enough. How they treated blindingly obvious spies as innocent liberals victimized by the right

Soviet spies in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations: what we now know for sure, thanks to KGB archives

Proof that McCarthy nemesis I.F. Stone, so-called "conscience of investigative journalism," was a paid Soviet agent
The rewards of "victimization": how, for all their endless bellyaching, exposed Communists fared pretty well -- not a few going on to fame and fortune because of their "blacklisting"

Vietnam: How liberals use the one war America lost -- thanks to them -- to obstruct and undermine each and every exercise of our military power abroad, no matter how obviously necessary

The real lessons of Vietnam: a textbook case of how Democratic equivocation about using power leads to catastrophe

Why the Democrats are on the precipice of securing their reputation as "the Neville Chamberlains of our time"

Hobnobbing with the enemy: a Rogues' Gallery of top Democrats who are always popping up in countries hostile to the U.S.

The media in wartime: How they feign objectivity while trying to demoralize the country with their endless naysaying

Refuted: the laughable new myth that Harry Truman was an "aggressive anti-Communist" who won the Cold War -- and how liberals use it to deny credit to Ronald Reagan

A study in leadership: How Ronald Reagan's invincible faith in God and freedom ignited the will of the American people to defeat Soviet totalitarianism

How do liberal claims that the Soviet Union "self-destructed" square with what they said while it was still around?

Why, thanks to liberalism, there is still no serious stigma attached to the label "Communist"

From Hiss to Clinton: How, at every critical moment for the Democratic Party for the last 50 years, liberals would wage monstrous campaigns of disinformation and liberal agitprop

North Korea: a perfect illustration of the inconsistency and incoherence of the Democrats' approach to national security


Considering your own mud slinging, the phrase “have you no sense of decency” comes to mind.

What sick, pathetic irony!

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Art,

If you would like me to add your name to the growing list of avowed Socialists who comment on this blog, I would be happy to oblige.

Yes? No?

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sbvor,
You're a trip. You live in some alternate universe where every fact is spun into a web of differing opinions. But wasn't rewriting history one of the techniques used to create a totalitarian state in '1984'?

That seems to be exactly what you and your benefactor are attempting to do.

And when in the future, someone Googles one of the many topics about which you feign expertize, they will see Dr. Reich's reputable blog with your history rewrites included and be confounded, confused, delayed and maybe even thwarted from finding the truth. Mission accomplished.
Your job is to cloud the waters of future historical research.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger joebhed said...

It's really too bad that most of you and Mr. Reich himself do not see the cause of the problem he is toying with.
It is the capitalist system, as we know it.
The capitalists control the distribution of the MONEY SUPPLY.

Guess what?
They give it to their friends first, and their friends give it back to them.

The GROWTH in the money supply EVERY YEAR takes place through the private banking franchise known as the federal Reserve System.
It creates the new money as debt out of thin air, and lends it to their friends, who use it to do, guess what, give it to their friends.
Economic disparity?

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Anonymous,

If you have not availed yourself to both versions of the story, then you have no idea which is accurate. Do you?

We have all been immersed in the propaganda from The Left. Only a few know the facts which support the other side of the story. The Left carefully avoids any exposure to the other side of the story. Isn’t THAT what totalitarians do?

Fine, if your totalitarian style blind hatred for your opposition keeps you ignorant, try starting with what PBS can readily reveal about The Venona Cables and progress from there to learn that McCarthy was absolutely correct!

Remember, at the time McCarthy was rooting out Soviet spies from within the highest levels of our government; The Venona Cables were already available to those with the proper clearance.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sbvor:

You'd be correct about not hearing the right's point of view if it were not for MSM, talk radio, the press and TV. Fact is, America is swimming in a sea of right wing propaganda and you're part of it: the discussion group version.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Anonymous,

If your thesis were correct, then the facts surrounding McCarthy and Venona would be more commonly understood and Obama would not have a snowball’s chance in Hades of becoming our next President.

Again, remember, at the time McCarthy was rooting out Soviet spies from within the highest levels of our government; The Venona Cables were already available to those with the proper clearance.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The basic reality is this: For most Americans, earnings have not kept up with the cost of living."

This is wrong-headed. Claiming a "basic reality" implies a wrong assumption about what's going on currently.

But it's almost correct... what it should read is this: "The basic reality is this: For most Americans, earnings have not kept up with the cost of SPENDING."


If everyone in the USA was content to live within their means, banks, mortgage brokers, con men of all stripes including politicians would have absolutely no traction. This bubble would never have existed.

Instead, the current situation calls for me and the approximately 50% of the people in this country that DO live within our means to bail out the other half.

People living within their means force the economy to adapt. They are the market.

Because of fiat currency, we're forced to play whether we like it or not. It's not like we take our gold and leave the country. No, instead, we're called "deadbeats" by the credit merchants, who use our savings and checking deposits to prop up a broken system.

This has nothing to do with the cost of living and everything to do with the cost of SPENDING.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

Why should I commit to one way or the other? Just to satisfy you? Mais non! Mais non! Better to leave you wondering; sure, but yet unsure.

Of course not knowing something has never deterred you from acting like you know something.

BTW, thanks for the link to Ann Coulter. Whenever I am seeking expert analysis and objective and truthful reporting I always look to Annie first. Anyone who is an epitome must be a reliable resource. Ann is the epitome of the "Dumb Blonde".

To your earlier post, she is living proof that you don't have to be bright to get a college degree.

Thanks again! Propaganda is always such fun.

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Art,

I just thought you might like to be honest for once.

My mistake!

pitié!

Sunday, 27 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think trickle down has worked famously in the global economy. The corporation is a good example of trickle down. You have the owner/investors, management, and workers. There is tension over how the trickle is divvied up. Much of the trickle is by-passing American workers and is directed to overseas workers. The plague of easy credit hastened the collapse because it reduces disposable income of workers and inflates prices. Given current conditions, give a man a wage increase and he will leverage it by borrowing more, he will not become more economically sound. If standard of living is stability, most people operate on the verge of bankruptcy based on monthly cash flow, except for the "few that have everything". A house of cards comes to mind; living on leverage.

Our consumer driven economy causes even more money to flow to other countries who in turn, loan the money back to the government for a fee. The government then distributes the money. How the money is distributed is important because it sometimes misses the wage workers, the economy driving consumers. Using taxes to force a re-distribution of money misses the point. We have global economy problems with local economy "solutions". We do have an issue where the investor class and management class is sucking a disproportionate amount of trickle out of the system. The current situation leaves the worker class with a declining standard of living as we are no longer a value added society, the traditional means for workers to get some trickle. As the standard of living goes up for the wage worker in Asia, ours comes down.

Adding to the problem, capitalism no longer works finding universal value. Value is "perceived", like the value of oil. Our economy is entering a Second Life phase where old fashion concepts like supply and demand no longer work. Value is established by the smoke and mirrors process between the suppliers and the demanders that black box globalization and the concentration of market makers allows.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Sbvore thank you agin for explaining that the future will solve our problems we are having today. I'll be watching for the appearance of those time travelers you're promising.

Matt, cooperation is actaully a form of competition. Maybe I didn't make that clear. This is why wolves hunt in packs, whales hunt in pods. This is why different species in ecosystems evolve to work together to promote each other. Ants on Acacia trees and such.

But we are trained to think that cooperation is the enemy of competition. We need to be divided and be taught that we must be divided in order to succeed. That people can't succeed together, that people must succeed by making others fail.

This is a false interpretation of competition. It only works in nature with apex predators and carrion feeders. And if we apply that logic to humans, it essentially makes us cannibals and ghouls.

The point you make about increasing consumption now, is infinitely regressive. If we can increase production, we will. And we will grow to need further increases in consumption. We will keep growing our consumption to infinity, because it is our nature. And only nature can stop us.

We are addicts and we are screaming for more, promising that if we get more, we'll switch addictions when something new comes along.

The problem Matt is that we can't practice infinite consumption on a finite planet. And we won't stop until we run out of energy. And we won't plan or work to cope, so we'll just crash. It's what we are.

If we weren't a plague species, we wouldn't be here.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

There is a difference between being honest and being obscure.

Those who rigidly categorize by the "isms" fail to exhibit the mental capacity to grasp that no one "ism" holds the optimum solution.

Just as in mixing an alcoholic cocktail, the proportion of the ingredients is the determinate of optimal satisfaction. Granted after testing and tasting a variety of the mixtures all remaining samples produce optimal results until tomorrow morning.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

Expand your knowledge by reading the transcript of McCarthy/Welch and begin to understand what an a-hole McCarthy was, don't forget to remove your blinders.

Ha...the learning curve at work!

Do you not find it incongruous, in America, that because one happened to investigate, through involvement with others or not, a different political ideology, that one should be labeled a traitor, an undesirable? Spies are one thing, the pursuit of knowledge and intellectual curiosity quite another.

Conservatives always fail to understand what America really stands for.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Right on, Anonymous.

what we need to understand is that Americans are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the US economy.

To keep the economy functioning, we're moving to a state where our economy only needs the government, the banks, the military and the Chinese.

US Citizens are becoming redundant and no longer necessary to the functioning of America.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Art,

Your video presents a classic example of how skillful rhetoric delivered by a slick lawyer cynically tugging at the emotions can often prevail in the court of public opinion over cold hard facts. How do you think John Edwards made his fortune?

Even Welch admitted:

1) That the NLG was (and remains?) a Communist Front.
2) Fred Fisher was (previously) a member of the NLG.


Had the general public known then what SOME know now about the Venona Cables, the public would likely have seen things very differently.

Unlike so many others, I am unaware of any evidence that Fred Fisher was a spy on Stalin’s payroll. But, anybody in that era with access to the Venona Cables would have been correct to raise questions about anybody in government with Communist connections.

Our Constitution allows our citizens to embrace and espouse the Communist ideology. It does not allow our citizens to provide aid and comfort to our enemy (then, the Soviet Union).

The Venona cables prove, beyond any doubt, that treason, as defined in the Constitution, was in progress during the McCarthy era. Was some damage done to Communists sympathizers who were not actually guilty of treason? Perhaps. Did most, if not all of those so-called “victims” actually benefit from the celebrity and the emotional response so skillfully elicited by Welch and his ilk? Undoubtedly! But, McCarthy was, by far, done the greatest harm (while doing more than any American ever has to expose what we now know was the FACT of active and pervasive TREASON within the HIGHEST LEVELS of our government!).

Quoting PBS/Nova:

“Analysts at the National Security Agency have gone on record asserting that Ales [described in the Venona cables] could only have been Alger Hiss.”

As that previous link demonstrates, Alger Hiss shares responsibility with FDR for ceding half of Europe to Joseph Stalin at Yalta (thereby condemning millions of Europeans to democide). Which is of greater historic consequence? Hiss at Yalta or Fisher/Welch? Which gets more play in the halls of so-called academia? Why?

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guys ignore this spam called sbvor... He is as knowledgeable as Bush and Reagan put together.
Anybody remember Reagan answering questions at the gardens in Versailles, and he was giving the wrong answers to the reporters because he had memorized them and got them mixed up? Holly cow... the idiots that the Republican party has produced.. is beyond belief!
I got a good joke about Bush...I'll post it later.For you Sbvor baby.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

joke

And sbvor baby... study a bit about WW2. It might surprise you.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger kayxyz said...

An end to lobbying: from Lou Dobbs book, war on the middle class, i think is the title:

Initiatives and resolutions put an issue directly on the ballot. to limit someone’s ability to become a lobbyist:

Ban for five years as a lobbyist.
Ban him/her and staff from Floor access in the US Capitol.
Ban from the House and Senate Office Buildings in Washington, DC.
Ban him from representing a foreign government.
Ban from representing any of the interests s/he represented as Senator: oil, China, health care. Any other interest you want to add.

Remember Proposition 13 in California and Proposition 200 in Arizona.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art:

I am sorry for your wife's health troubles.

Anonymous Matt

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

Thanks. Sh-t happens! You roll with it and make the best of it.

My best advice to any married folks would be to cherish your relationship. Quit worrying and nitpicking over inconsequential crap.

Your wife complains too much? Listen to her, she's probably more right than you are!

All wrapped up in your career path, working long hours? Wife nagging that you are neglecting her and the kids? Believe her! Remember, there are no rewind buttons in life.

No one knows what lies around the corner. Stop letting those hazy dreams about growing old together be put off until the kids are gone or the career is winding down. Don't live irresponsibly but cherish each moment with her and make sure there are more moments to cherish.

For those of you who have not yet realized that your wife is your best friend; stop and think about what life would be like without her around. Not about who would do the laundry, the cooking, the taking care of the kids, but who would be there to commiserate with you, to laugh with you, to share with you, joys and sufferings, to hold you and comfort you.

When you awake each morning look over at her and thank God she's there.

Don't wait until, "she had you at goodbye".

Hopefully you will never have to look back and realize that your career path didn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

Sorry if I got a little maudlin.

Meanwhile I assume you must have agreed with everything I said?

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

kayxyz:

The thoughts ain't bad but please, please, if nothing else look at California and realize that you don't want the general public deciding what's best by putting legislation on the ballot.

Read the posts here and those at the many other blogs you visit. Do you really want all those nutcases voting for our best interests?

Representative democracy is troublesome but direct democracy would be catstrophic.

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Art,

My condolences regarding your wife.

Check out Colorado ballot initiative 101 (not likely to make it to a vote).

Monday, 28 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

Thanks to you too.

I guess the good news is that male homosexuals would not be affected. And the bad news is that many women already practice the suggested action far more than once a year, albeit for varying reasons. It can be a very effective motivational tool for achieving desired outcomes.

If you look down the whole list there is one absurd initiative after another. Who thinks that the majority of the Colorado voters can make informed judgments on that hodgepodge.

Most of the initiatives appear designed to appeal to the emotions of the voters not necessarily their wisdom.

Unfortunately the same is true in many state legislatures.

Tuesday, 29 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

Back to the ubiquitous game.

...a classic example of how skillful rhetoric delivered by a slick lawyer cynically tugging at the emotions can often prevail in the court of public opinion over cold hard facts.

King George III had the same opinion of the Continental Congresses. Absent guns and war, man has only rhetoric to settle disputes. That one is more skillful than another neither invalidates the correctness of the skillful nor validates the correctness of the lesser skilled.

McCarthy was a hack more interested in limelight than patriotism. He was on a witchhunt not a quest for truth and justice. In that time, given, once again, the emotional gullibility of the American public, anyone tagged with any association with the Communist ideology, especially if they attended meetings with those of a like mind, were branded as traitors and subversives who should be deported at best and lynched at worst.

McCarthy nurtured that feeling and commenced to hold an open court to expose anyone who ever considered that alternative. Witness after witness was required, under oath, to expose the names of anyone they knew who was tainted with the "plague". Names and careers were ruined all in the guise of patriotism and with nothing more in the way of evidence of wrongdoing than mere association emanating from witness testimony. If you read carefully, McCarthy's exposure of Fred Fisher was not predicated on some sophisticated investigation carried out by the FBI but rather a news article. The exposure of treason should be made of sterner stuff.

I'm not arguing here about actual spies or spying activities. Communists in government was a shroud. McCarthy's goal was to expose anyone, especially of celebrity status, who dared entertain another approach.

Congressional committees are not courts and politcians are not judges. Read your link to Article III closely.

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury...

Now you and Annie and McCarthy would argue that the committee wasn't judging, wasn't passing out sentences, but actually they were. They were establishing by association, often nothing more, a Scarlett Letter, to be borne by anyone they decided to mention openly. The emotional furor and the fear of those associated with those anyones established the sentences, the committee needed not enter that sphere.

Even your expression:

Even Welch admitted:

1) That the NLG was (and remains?) a Communist Front.
2) Fred Fisher was (previously) a member of the NLG.


suggests that the aura continues.

The Boy Scouts of America has been labelled by some as anti-gay, does this mean that everyone associated with them is capable of committing hate crimes?

Was some damage done to Communists sympathizers who were not actually guilty of treason? Perhaps.

Perhaps!?

I was always fond of the actor, Howard da Silva. I don't know if he was considered a great actor but there was something about him that came through the screen. His fate:

In 1947, his career was threatened when the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began its investigation into alleged Communist influence of Hollywood. Actor Robert Taylor, called as a "friendly witness", accused many of his fellow actors and writers of either being communists or having communist sympathies. When questioned about da Silva, Taylor said, "I can name a few who seem to sort of disrupt things once in a while. Whether or not they are communists I don't know. One chap we have currently, I think is Howard da Silva. He always seems to have something to say at the wrong time." On November 25, 1947, a meeting of Hollywood executives held in New York released a statement known as the Waldorf Statement, in which they announced a blacklist would be immediately imposed aimed at anyone named or suspected as a communist. "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a communist." Howard appeared in a few more films before he was called before HUAC, refused to answer any of the committee's questions and was promptly blacklisted by the studios. He continued working in the theatre, and once the blacklist was lifted in the early 1960s made a return to film and television. He passed away two years after making his last movie.

Over time I noticed that I wasn't seeing him in any movies. It was years later before I found out why. Now Robert Taylor's (another actor I always enjoyed) testimony was clearly proof enough that something was rotten in Hollywood and Howard da Silva was one of the reasons. God help us all if that is sufficient evidence for condemning our behavior.

That da Silva and others perservered and were able to continue their chosen careers, in other venues, does not suffice to excuse the injustice done to them.

McCarthy was a fool, an inept bumbling buffoon seeking what would later become known as his "fifteen minutes of fame". He deserves the place in history ascribed to him by thinking people.

Your other epiphany:

“Analysts at the National Security Agency have gone on record asserting that Ales [described in the Venona cables] could only have been Alger Hiss.”

Another piece of sound evidence in support of facts. Assertions do not truth make. A review of all of yours should be evidence of that fact.

Tuesday, 29 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art:

I agree with all of your comments about the wife part...as for the rest, you know, not so much.

AM

Tuesday, 29 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

Spoken as a true dyed-in-the-wool executive. Never consider opposing views for it may taint the dream. :)

Tuesday, 29 July, 2008  
Blogger Big Mama said...

The wealthy devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, the very wealthy are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.

... thus making themselves more money that they will not spend on actual goods and services, and effectively locking up even more money.

I suppose my failure to understand the whole mind-set of actively working to make more money when you already have more than you can possibly spend, is why I DON'T have that kind of money. It seems to me that the only ethical thing to do with that kind of money is to responsibly give it away.

Wednesday, 30 July, 2008  
Anonymous BenL8 said...

The post that quotes Marriner Eccles, who headed the Federal Reserve during the FDR years, is very good. I recommend to all readers to find it. He has it right. Your blinders will fall off. I think Jeff Madrick's book Why Economies Grow reiterates this point. Madrick is editor of the magazine Challenge. As for R. Reich's column, I think it can be put simply as a severe imbalance between compensation and profit over a 30 year period.

Wednesday, 30 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Big Mama:

I won't dispute that it's important to be charitable, especially when you've been fortunate. But, I'm not sure I agree with the thought that the "rich" are locking up money by not consuming. Rather, I think many are saving current income that is in excess of what they need for future consumption, such as for a child's education or for retirement.

I also think it is important to remember that these saved dollars do not fall out of the economy. Instead, they become capital investments, loan funds, etc. The multiplier effect of savings may be marginally less than the multiplier effect of consumption due to reserve requirements, but it exists nonetheless.

Please bear in mind that I'm not trying to make a trickle down argument here, but merely point out the fact that this money doesn't dissapear when it winds up in a savings or investment account.

anonymous matt

Wednesday, 30 July, 2008  
Blogger joebhed said...

Mama is right.

Many of those who have it see nothing wrong with having more of it.

The problem is that those who CONTROL it, that is, the Federal Reserve bankers and those with what Pres. Martin van Buren always wrote as THE MONEY POWER, want to keep running this money-centric economic/financial system to their own benefits.
It's that simple.

And it is in so doing that they have embrittled our national economy and our financial system, to make it so susceptible to the encroaching calamity.
More so than any other industrialized country in the world.
Ours will be the biggest hit because we have allowed those with THE MONEY POWER to ignore the more economically productive use of capital, in favor of the more money-productive use that embodies our capitalistic state.
It's all about the money system folks.
Don't piddle around about taxes and fiscal policy.
Fix the money system and you fix what ails this nation.

See:
http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf

Let's get on with monetary reform NOW.

Thursday, 31 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

A somewhat weak argument. I doubt you will find many "rich" folks with savings accounts at banks. The return just isn't there when compared to all the other alternatives available to the "rich". Remember that the "rich" have access to investment vehicles that working class America doesn't even know exist.

Investments in the stock market and its various outgrowths do little for the general economy and have little, if any, multiplier effect. Other than IPOs and secondary stock issuances, the stock market, and investments to it, do not add jobs or provide any boost to those who must toil everyday for meager wages.

Admittedly the argument does depend on the definition of "rich". There is more and more US wealth being invested overseas which does almost nothing for our economy or the plight of our workers.

Big Mama is correct in the larger picture. The "rich" do tend to "lock up" their wealth in investments that do very little for the benefit of all in our economic system.

Thursday, 31 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art:

I was actually thinking that it ends up in managed fund accounts (unless we're talking about the really wealthy who have enough to create their own diversified portfolios--you're average highly compensated, late 30s executive hasn't accumulated anywhere near enough wealth for that yet), which would could potentially include any kind of investment--equity, debt, real estate, etc. (though I don't think it's a bad idea to keep some liquidity in a savings account). I don't think it multiples as efficiently as consumption, but it multiplies nonetheless.

Also, I disagree that a secondary market equity investment does nothing for the economy. The secondary market is what gives primary investors the confidence to invest in the first place. The marginal secondary market investor is purchasing the stock from someone else who owns it. That original owner may be reinvesting ir or may be paying for college, drawing retirement income, etc.

AM

Thursday, 31 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

Even you're average highly compensated, late 30s executive who hasn't accumulated anywhere near enough wealth for investing in many of the more exotic investment vehicles, is more likely to invest in his/her own diversified portfolio than a managed fund. Managed funds are generally considered relatively safe long term investment options with reasonable but marginal returns. They are usually the best options for the unsophisticated investor who has neither the time nor knowledge to manage his own portfolio and often does not the funds to enable purchasing 100 bloc shares in long standing reliable companies.

Though true, managed funds may invest in a variety of venues, the bulk of them, the mutuals, are heavy into equities. Those substantially in debt or real estate are generally special funds with those choices as their primary investment targets and, again, are not wise for investors that are risk averse. Of course the safer the debt fund the lower the normal returns. As profound as the investment option looked, many an investor, not necessarily wealthy, had significant retirement funds invested in market backed mortgage securities and we see what happened to many of them.

You also find many more funds, mutual and otherwise, investing in offshore ventures and real estate.

Most folks who have excess funds to invest, in sufficient amounts, full well know the value of long term stock investment. Granted it is the history of growth and success stories that drives the activity along with the inflation offset theory but once past the IPO stage that game is merely a floating crap table with none of the dollars and profits changing hands going to the companies whose stock is being traded and therefore doing nothing in the way of expanding capital expenditures or creating jobs.

That those selling stocks might use it for college expenses for their kids is possible but for the wealthy with a knowledge of what they are doing, it is far wiser to reinvest the money in vehicles that allow them a leverage gain if they borrow the money to finance college.

If they use the money for retirement in most cases it will not have the same multiplier effect since consumption rates of retirees are generally much reduced.

For the economy and the general welfare it would be far better if the wealthy would invest in new plant and equipment and new businesses in the US and create jobs with decent pay thereby expanding the pie for all. That was the idea behind "trickle down". Unfortunately that kind of investment has greater risk. Much simpler to invest in existing equities or private equity firms or hedge funds, if you have the required asset base, reap you rewards, and let all those little people fend for themselves.

I didn't say your argument was invalid, just weak.

Thursday, 31 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

I guess I should add that few of the "rich" suffer liquidity problems. When you can drop by your bank and on signature alone get a $10,000 or $25,000 or for some a $100,000 short term loan, liquidity would seem to rank right up there with what's on HBO tonight.

Thursday, 31 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art:

I used to try and manage the savings/investments on my own, but never devoted enough time to it. I turned it over to an active manager and just pay the fee. My returns (even after the fee) have improved because someone is paying attention on much more than a sporadic basis. The company I use does equities, fixed income, derivatives, real property, etc.

Borrow the money? I'm a finance guy! We don't believe in personal debt. I drove an old Camry until a few years ago when it was time to do the second timing belt and my wife said, "you're going to spend $1,500 on a car that isn't even worth $1,000? What are you, an idiot?"

A few days later, I show up at work with a new car and am walking in the door with a peer from the marketing department. After telling me that it was about time I got a car befitting my position in the company, he says, "What are the payments on that thing?"

I say, oh, I bought it for cash.

"How did you save up enough money?" he said.

"You know, a little bit at a time. Like chipmunks," I said.

He is a SVP now and makes a good bit more than me and still isn't saving a dime!

M

Thursday, 31 July, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

All of us want to thank you for your contributions to the general economic welfare by investing wisely with the help of a financial manager. Many others in your income bracket may not be similarly inclined and certainly many beyond your income bracket, those operating in the stratosphere, are not likely to use "funds" to increase their investment returns.

I'm sure your wife is a wonderful lady but I would disagree with her economic analysis. I learned years ago that a car is transportation. It is not an extension of my ego nor is it necessary to wear it as exhibit A of my success. Not knowing how much you paid for your new car, I would bet that the cash you expended could have come close to returning to you that $1,500 over a year's time. For those who borrow to buy a new car the $1,500 is far less than the interest they would pay each year on the new purchase. Without a detailed thorough analysis I felt if I could get by with $1,500 to $2,000 a year for repairs beyond normal maintenance I was ahead of the game by keeping my old junker.

Certainly many a finance guy views personal debt with a jaundiced eye. On the other hand many others of them understand the advantages of financial leverage and use debt wisely to maximize total net returns. No doubt, wisely is the operative word.

Your SVP buddy is living proof that you don't have to be bright to succeed in business, at least as a corporate employee. Truthfully I've never encountered many marketing folks steeped with good financial sense.

By the way, have you ever worked in accounting in a manufacturing environment?

Friday, 01 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art:

Yes. I spent my first five years out of B-school at a manufacturer. The last job there was as a plant controller.

I miss price/volume variances.

The retailer I work for now uses the retail method for inventory accounting (not sure if you've ever experienced that), which is basically a way of averaging out the COGS of the inventory you've sold/still have in stores. I think it had a lot of value before the advent of the ability to see sales and track costs down to the SKU level, but is really an anachronism nowadays. I'd love to move towards the more traditional cost accounting I grew up with, but the challenge is that it would require whole departments to completely change processes/systems and the benefits we'd receive in terms of easier/faster accounting, control and planning with a handful less people doesn't come anywhere near close to the costs required to implement such a change.

You and I are together on the car thing.

The truth of the purchase is actually a bit more detailed...and kind of funny. We hosted a Christmas party for my team and my wife was talking to one of my group managers. She brought up the topic of my car (1986 Camry with severe oxidation, a little rust, and the fabric roof pinned up with thumbtacks)with him and he said, why don't you just go out and buy him a new one? She did (the timing belt conversation had happened that morning).

Bear in mind that this occured less than six months after we had purchased the new minivan that she just had to have. I do have to give her credit for at least picking out a reasonable (i.e. not too fancy) car and getting it certified pre-owned. In the end, it bought me some peace, the value of which I don't know how to quantify.

You're right about the benefits of leverage. I'm just not sure how wise I am, so I figure that it is best to stay away from it.

M

Friday, 01 August, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

Wholeheartedly believe in a good car for the wife, with reasonable limits. Although my wife always had a different definition of reasonable than I did.

The reason I ask about manufacturing was just an ongoing argument I had with my management. The last one I argued with threw me a curve by suggesting that my solution was not consistent with GAAP. I had always had a fairly good handle on GAAP but hadn't needed to reference it for years. I did a cursory review but couldn't find anything to support his argument nor mine.

This individual was a VP of Finance, a young fellow around your age, MBA/CPA and very bright. Of course that never stops me from arguing my point of view and I win my share.

The dilemma:

I have a Marketing department that designs a special promotional product. The ingredients are of course standard stuff but the componentry and packaging are custom. In typical fashion, everything is done yesterday and orders for the materials go out long before we have committed sales from our customers. As was often the case, the orders didn't come through or measure up to the expense so the program is cancelled. Since we had made committments to vendors, we have to honor them and pay for both finished product (theirs) or work in process (theirs). These kinds of cancellations were always charged to manufacturing operations (COGS). We did have a special account that supposedly identified these expenses as Marketing even though in COGS but in actuality manufacturing always took the heat. It happened frequently enough and the dollars were of an amount that I felt they should be charged to the Marketing budget directly and not through COGS. My minimalist argument was that since we never had manufactured the goods it wasn't a proper classification. My insistence was more predicated on the idea that expenses should be charged to those whose actions caused the expense and that was not manufacturing. Of course the constant argument was that Marketing doesn't have a budget for that. Tough!

Just curious about your opinion.

Friday, 01 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art:

The left pocket - right pocket and nimb (not in my budget) arguments are so endearing, aren't they?

I see this (at least based on the information you gave) as a management vs. external reporting dilemma.

I think the incomplete material/transformation costs belong in either in the COGS line or in disc. ops. below the line in external reporting. It sounds like this was ongoing business practice, so it would have to be straight COGS.

You're essentially talking about an asset write down in one of the COGS lines, which happens a lot. I think that is the proper accounting treatment.

The budget/internal picture is murkier. I'm with you, especially if this is true promotional activity and you built their budget using a marketing to sales ratio; This would just be their way of sweeping budget overspend under the rug through the left pocket/right pocket thing.

This is, of course, where that sticky VP thing that I sometimes don't like about myself comes in. I would push a bit, but probably wouldn't make a federal case of it, unless I had the aircover of a burning platform, such as a substantial expense challenge from corporate.


M

Friday, 01 August, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

I would tend to agree that it is a muddled issue. I can see the argument for COGS, especially if writing off inventory, which sometimes was the case. Most of the time we were paying the vendor to destroy at his location. We had neither booked the asset nor the liability because nothing had been shipped or received.

A side note; we had followed the old paradigm of not recognizing a purchase until we received the merchandise, not an unusual practice for many firms. Except that over the years, as with most industry, FOB terms had shifted from Destination to Origin tranferring title to us when goods were shipped to us. We, of course, did not recognize the liability because we hadn't physically received the goods yet.

After years of this the auditors woke up and, since intransit goods were significant dollars, told us we had to book an intransit accrual. A mad scramble ensued and vendors were requested(?) to ship FOB Destination once again. All complied, not sure what the carrot was, except a few which we began accruing for each month.

Still left begging is the question of liability associated with issuing a PO. Once we issued a PO and the vendor commenced spending our liability clock commenced but was never recognized. We even established a coordinated system with some vendors where we would send them a spreadsheet with forecasted requirements by SKU, going out six months or so, and once they entered that information into their system we could not decrease or cancel the order without incurring liability, whether they had spent any money or not. Naturally we could add to the quantities ordered with no recourse.

Back to the subject. Am not completely familiar with the Marketing budget process. It was a mixed bag in that certain types of promotional goods were charged directly to Marketing while others were COGS. COGS was the norm for most promotional materials it was just specific kinds of FGs which were charged to Marketing.

Working as an Inventory Analyst I was not privy to all our reporting schemes but whatever varieties we had would have been driven by the automated General Ledger system with data collected from the accounts that would mirror external reporting. In the various furors I had on this subject I suggested that we should have internal management reporting where costs are categorized by responsibility without regard for external requirements.

We had a lot of nice, reasonably competent, folks in the accounting area but I had severe problems with their understanding of how to best provide management with information to monitor and manage the business. During most of my years there we were a marketing driven company and the marketing group always trumped the operations and finance groups.

Remember the VP of Sales story I related in an earlier post? Well after a buyout he eventually became CEO of the combined company, I had left the old company and came back to the combined company sometime later. In the interim I believe he was responsible for establishing the Marketing superiority process.

Anyway, I was involved in this whole issue because the disposal request for all purchased, product related, materials, came to my desk for initial approval. This was both inhouse inventory and materials at vendors as yet unbooked. The total amounted to $10 million/year. The vast majority of that total was from inhouse inventory and there was another significant portion at vendors that was not directly related to Marketing decisions, other than lousy forecasting. The dollar value associated directly with the promotional activity to which I am speaking could be in any given year hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now when the COGS materials budget was $200 million a year I often faced the argument that, on a piecemeal basis, this was peanuts and not worth getting upset about.

Further muddying the picture is that we were a multibrand company and whatever exposure these kinds of expenditures received was spread across those many brands and thereby diluted. Since I was seeing all of them I had a sense of the magnitude of the issue across the board and though still a minor percentage to the total I felt that the total dollars were worth saving or reducing. Ten thousand here, a hundred thousand there and pretty soon we're talking real money.

When I had a chance to review some of them more thoroughly, I processed a couple hundred Disposal Authorization Requests a year, I often found notes on the programs stating that Purchasing should place the orders for materials even though the program had not been approved by management at that point.

There were big dollars in our promotion budget much of them in annual, seasonal, standard promotions. Every year we had tons of "drop in" programs to boost sales in various periods and these generally caused the issues here. The timing windows were very short and to meet planned shipment schedules the ordering/manufacturing priorities had to turn on a dime.

I am still of the belief that GAAP would not be violated by reporting certain of these kinds of costs as Marketing expense instead of COGS. Even external reporting is attempting to show the audience where the costs were incurred, in my view, from a responsibility standpoint. If my gross margins are impaired by capturing COGS that are not matched with sales I am not portraying a true picture of my operations.

As I've stated, I tend to stand on principle and corporate politics is anathema to me, so I went to the wall more than once on this issue. I had varying degrees of agreement, from managers and executives, but could never get a consensus to make the change.

BTW, in addition to the $10 million thrown away each year we would close the year with a comparable amount in Obsolescence Reserves. This was not a healthy company and in my view cutting this expense by 20 or 30% was worth the effort. Over the years personnel cuts aggravated the problem and I always believed that with a budget of $200,000/year I could put together a group that could easily have shaved a few million off this horrendous waste. Alas, the various finance groups were considered merely bean counters. They should tally the numbers and leave management alone.

Saturday, 02 August, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Matt:

Although probably clear, my job as Inventory Analyst was in the cost accounting group, often the lowest on the totem pole. I am, however, a general accountant at heart.

Cost accountants tend to get all caught up with labor and material variances resulting from the plant operations. They seldom worry with classifications or good management reporting. Our cost accounting group was weak to begin with and expanding their horizons was akin to finding life on Mars. Adding to the problem was that they were all more interested in job security so rocking the boat was never viewed as a good idea.

Accounting should be made of sterner stuff.

My early training in accounting, with a small CPA firm doing write up work while I was going to school, taught me that if we accountants don't have integrity we have nothing. Without integrity we are nothing more than pencil pushers adept at writing numbers in little buckets.

Integrity sometimes requires taking a firm stand. Jobs are relatively plentiful; integrity, once lost, is difficult to regain again.

Saturday, 02 August, 2008  
Anonymous Valuation Consultant said...

I have just visited this blog for the first time, having found it on the Blogroll of another blog. This post's comments on the U.S. consumer are very much in line with my own. In August, 2005 I concluded it likely that a significant portion of U.S. consumer spending resulted from consumer borrowing against escalated house prices. I further concluded if that indeed was the case, U.S. consumer spending would have to drop as house prices could not continue to rise forever at the then pace of price escalation. I reached this conclusion long before August, 2007 – which date I assign to the broad recognition of the sub-prime problems. I openly admit I was not smart enough to correlate U.S. consumer spending with a drop in house prices and the resultant credit problems that continue to escalate. Had I linked those two things in 2005 I would have felt even more strongly than I then did about the likelihood of U.S. consumer running out of gas (no pun intended). Concurrently (in August, 2005) I researched the U.S. trade deficits, manufacturing job losses, and national debt. I concluded at the time the U.S. dollar had to drop against other currencies, and then realigned all of my market investments into precious metal and oil & gas stocks, and Canadian cash (I am Canadian – and in my thinking was particularly sensitive to the fact of house mortgage interest deductibility in the U.S. which we do not have in Canada). My thinking at the time also caused me to develop a website, StockResearchPortal.com and a related blog StockResearchPortalBlog.com, both recently introduced to the Internet. We regularly post commentary on Valuation, Economic, and Stock Research issues. The quality of the posts and comments I have read on Robert Reich’s blog is such that we have added it as a Blogroll link on our Blog. To put this in perspective, I have reviewed over 250 economic related blogs in the past few days, and have only included 4 so far in our Blogroll. The website, which focuses on Canadian Mining and Oil & Gas stock research, includes an Economic Research tab where each month we update U.S. and Canadian (among other country) economic charts summarizing Trade Deficits, Manufacturing and Service Job gains and losses, Housing statistics, Consumer Confidence, and so on. Access to the StockResearchPortal.com website currently is free. I am posting this comment in part to make Robert Reich’s blog contributors aware of our website (and the Economic charts they can find there) and related Blog given their obvious interest in the economic drivers that I (and seemingly they) believe are important both currently and prospectively.

Sunday, 03 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i find it strange that of all the wide-ranging intelligent comments on this, no one mentioned the US wars and general cost of empire, as a major factor in this economic mess.
is there universal agreement that the last decade of overt and covert wars and empire maintenance ( so-called "defense" spending) is not a factor in our economics?
reading this page, you'd never know that the US has an empire that it is pouring vast resources into maintaining by force.

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Blogger whatshisface said...

Anonymous said...
I find it strange that of all the wide-ranging intelligent comments on this, no one mentioned the US wars and general cost of empire, as a major factor in this economic mess.

I find it even stranger that no one mentioned the reason why American business fled America in the first place.

I am not an economist and I know nothing about trade, but Robert Reich missed the point about free trade and the gutting of the American way of life.

The other day, I was watching a show about China and the spokesman passed by a huge factory. He tried to take his camera into it because it was an American Corporation. It was refused. Anyway, he interviewed a young girl from that factory who had migrated to Shanghai. She worked in the factory for .40cents an hour. They followed her struggle to live, her apartment, etc. etc. Surprisingly, she lived on her wages, albeit, struggling to make ends meet. She was glad she left her home in rural China because she could now support her parents…even if she had not yet gotten to that point. Still, the fact that an American company would pay 40 cents to a girl in China said it all.

Later, somebody mentioned that the average job in China paid 54 cents an hour. Even still, that is nothing.

The Chinese worker also does not have other benefits that were hidden in the cost of labor in America. E.g., the American worker was given social security, clean air, clean water, the minimum wage, government agencies like safety, etc. etc. etc. When you add minimum wage, social security, health benefits, government bureaucracy and many other costs to the worker’s basic income here in America, is it any wonder that Richard Nixon opened up the China Gold fields to Investment Bankers and Ronald Reagan helped many businesses to change their American address for a Chinese one. It seems that these free trade agreements gave American corporations only one bother…to pay a Chinese coolie 40 cents an hour and the corporation was immune from paying social security, health, and the rest of the baggage. The free trade agreements that the Presidents presented to the public with the help of the democrats and the republicans were agreements to chuck the American worker to the dustbins of history. Wall Street and the Political system abandoned the American worker for the gold that could be sucked out of the foreign worker. Such patriotism and love hath no man exhibited more for his citizen that our government. Is it any wonder the American consumer/worker doesn't have a pot to pee in when he is labeled public enemy no. one. Why else has government opened the boarders to every tom-dick-and-Harry?

It doesn't seem that we have defined the problem well enough to understand what is happening. I think this is the problem and if we don't start working on it now, we are going to be in a bad way.

I am reminded of the 49ers that went west to make their fortune. In the end, I suspect it made all of us wealthy. However, in reading Naomi Klein's book and Ernest Hollings, Wall strett has us by the cujones

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hear this time and time again:
"... 40% of government tax revenue is provided by the top 1% of income earners. How progressive do you intend to go?"

Indeed, the top 1% of the income earners are taking in about 95% of the wealth in this country. Don't you think they should be paying in equal proportion to what they are making? In other words, maybe they should be contributing 95% to the government expenses!

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Anonymous bmiller said...

This is an inevitable result of our profit-interest-debt based economy. Profit and interest only are achievable when transactions are inequitable. Over time, this relentlessly draws wealth up to the top. This can be temporarily remediated by increasing national debt, but debt can't be increased forever. At some point the bill has to be paid. That's probably what we're seeing now in all the economic turmoil.

A dauntlingly radical restructuring of our economy is needed wherein the needs and wants of self, community, and country are met on some basis more rational than bribing people with the promise of riches.

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Anonymous Geonomist said...

While taxes and expenditures are key, a fundamental shift might look like this: Do de-tax labor, and capital, beginning with bottom quintiles, not exempting the top until federal debts are paid off. Do subsidies the other way, disqualifying the top quintile first, working your way down. Instead of leaving discretionary spending with politicians, shift it to citizens; pay ourselves a "rent" dividend, a la Alaska's oil dividend. Government would run a surplus and be obliged to pay dividends were it to quit funding corporate welfare and to start charging full-market value for all the privileges it grants for free or some small filing fee, little pieces of paper like corporate charters, banking charters, utility franchises, patents/copyrights, emission permits, resource leases, land titles, etc - there's trillions there!

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Blogger dfirshein said...

This is a well written article and it gets up to the edge of the proverbial diving board. I have just one problem with it, which is the last paragraph, which is the most important in my mind. I think you to need write a follow-up to this article which addresses exactly “How” we should invest in the working class from the bottom up? Or with what? What are the effective ways it can be done? I’m not clear its possible or very easy to get at, yet this is the most important thing we need to talk about. In addition, I agree with a previous comment from Athena Smith that we are a culture that routinely spends beyond our means for luxuries as opposed to actual needs. Some of what we need to do is cultural belt tightening.

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Anonymous mike montagne said...

WHY DID OUR INDUSTRY LEAVE US?

WHY AREN'T OUR WAGES ABLE TO KEEP PACE WITH THE ESCALATING COST OF OUR OWN PRODUCTION?

You reach for fundamental causes, but not deep enough. The fundamental cause is inherent multiplication of debt by interest. The cause is that we have tolerated a system which from its inception was purposed to take from us by multiplication of debt; and that that process of taking can only drive up costs to us moreso than our wages can keep pace.

So not only is there no revelation here; all this is what is to be expected. I'll tell you why:

Any purported economy subject to interest can only multiply debt in proportion to the respective circulation, because such a form of circulation obligates us to maintain a circulation; and because to maintain a circulation, we are compelled perpetually to re-borrow periodic principal and interest obligations paid out of the general circulation, as subsequent sums of debt perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on the ever escalating sum of debt.

To maintain margins of solubility, industry therefore is perpetually compelled to raise its prices to cover the rising costs of its obligations to directly or even indirectly to service the perpetually escalating sum of debt. This is the real, fundamental cause of price inflation.

No, you're not authorized to go write a book about it, claiming the idea as your own.

If it were your own idea, you would have told us why industry leaves. Why does it leave?

When industry can no longer afford to raise its prices because the indebted market cannot bear the necessary increases, it is forced to leave; and it goes to countries where pretty young girls will work for 40 cents an hour, condemned to work on the streets if they ever violate the rules of the slave market, and lose their "license" to work.

Why can't our wages keep pace with the rising costs of servicing the ever escalating sum of debt?

Professors of true economics would know that too.

Our wages cannot keep pace with the rising costs of servicing the ever escalating sum of debt, because the nature of the process is to multiply debt in proportion to the related circulation.

Huh?

Think.

If maintaining a vital circulation inherently multiplies the sum of debt in proportion to the circulation, then ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt, leaving ever less to sustain the industry (wages, etc.) which are compelled to service the debt.

That's pretty simple, too, isn't it?

So what else might happen if you perpetually and irreversibly (because you must maintain a circulation) multiply debt in proportion to the circulation?

Come on, professor...

Ultimately and inevitably you generate a sum of debt which the system can no longer afford to service.

And guess what...

That day is here.


Thank you very much. Visit PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy if you want to solve the problem (even painlessly), versus continue to pave the way for it.

It's time to wake up folks; and it's time to do something about it.

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Anonymous KMarx said...

The idea we should not protect jobs is foolish. Other nations, especially India and China, take full advantage of H1-B Visas by sending their engineers, technicians and so on to the US for "on the job training".

Don't think for one second we can't produce high quality people in this has-been country. We could if Washington was not a department of Corporate America. If the US does not stop educating the rest of the world, what will this leave us with?

There are many highly qualified people here but Corporate Captialism will not tolerate anything save cheap overseas labor. There are many good people here but once you reach your forties or so you find it very difficult to secure any kind of decent long term work. After all doesn't everyone know that once you hit your forties you lose your touch and are of limited value in that you just can't cut the mustard anymore?

Oh BTW, Reich was a member of the previous administration that glorified "free for-all-trade".

Monday, 04 August, 2008  
Anonymous MarkH said...

Great post!

Our system has become greatly destabilized and while the rich are getting richer (no crime in itself if they are producing more wealth) the poor are getting poorer despite working harder longer and more jobs.

This is breaking us apart.

In the early 1900s Teddy Roosevelt warned of the Trusts and their inordinate power. In the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt (and his supporters) warned of the need to govern to avoid further collapse. In the 1980s V.P. Mondale argued that the trade imbalance was bleeding us slowly. That has grown, so that the current energy debate regularly reflects on how much money is going offshore to oil countries every day.

Now RR points out the destructive effects of this dynamic in the economy.

How much should we tax the rich or the poor or the workers or the capital income people? What's fair?

It isn't about 'fair'. It's about what's needed to hold the system together and to benefit the nation.

RR suggests increasing tax deductions for most families to $15,000. That's an attempt to solve a problem. Is it 'fair'? Each of us can decide, but if it solves the problem, then you'll have to provide some pretty good reasons to NOT do it before those of us who appreciate solutions will consider your argument 'fair'.

Great post!

Tuesday, 05 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The heart of the mess is the $1 QUADRILLION dollar derivatives bubble. The scope, magnitude, and unpredictable interconnectivity of this monster, created with the blessings of the Federal Reserve, dwarf all other factors.

www.TakeBackTheFed.com
www.xFed.mobi (mobile)

Tuesday, 12 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very interesting & good article. But, what I don't see many people talk about is.....consumption beyond the basic necessities of life is at the core of the problem. Americans (and western populace in general) were fortunate enough couple years back to enjoy all the luxuries that were out there while the people in the other parts (mostly third world countries) were impoverished & could barely afford 1/100th the standard of living compared to the western world. But, things are improving there & many of the developing world are coming up by the hard work & they are seeking more wealth & some of the luxury that was only confined to the west & this is putting a pressure of the amount of "standard of living" people can afford on the western front.

The root cause of the problem is too much consumption......& foolishly believing that it'll last forever. Every party no matter how lavish has to come to an end one day.

Friday, 22 August, 2008  
Blogger Ray Pairan Jr. said...

Robert I've been presenting this very same argument based upon underlying structural Economic issues for months in over 146 articles.

It's wonderful that most folks in academia are coming around to some of my theoretical insights.

http://structuralEconIssues.blogspot.com/

Monday, 25 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

Thursday, 12 February, 2009  
Anonymous wow power leveling said...

cheap wow power leveling buy wow power leveling cheapest wow gold CHEAP power leveling BUY wow gold CHEAPEST wow powerleveling WANGGONGwow goldwow goldffxi gilwow gold

Sunday, 03 May, 2009  
Anonymous wow power leveling said...

cheap wow power leveling buy wow power leveling cheapest wow gold CHEAP power leveling BUY wow gold CHEAPEST wow powerleveling WANGGONGwow goldwow goldffxi gilwow gold

Sunday, 03 May, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home