Dumb Bama: gonna create new jobs

[markabilly]

Seems bama has decided that he will create millions of new jobs....whoopie...all sorts of construction work....whoopie.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28096219

what dumb bama don't get (or perhaps it is the dumb public dumbsters who worship him), that it do not do no good when the good jobs of a long term productive nature are all going to China and India

All that means is more debt is craeted (another trillion or so) so that some folks (mostly big time contractorswho will be getting their millions of $$$in profits) can get some money to create low paying jobs so people in the low paying jobs can buy stuff made overseas, thereby creating more foreign debt along with short term prosperity that dies as soon as we run out of money......and not long term prouctivity jobs

Told you he was as stupid as McCain maybe even far dumber because he just might be stupid enough to think it will work---I thought Mccain ideas on health care were stupid, but this is worse....

wait until all those loans to foreign countries go bad because of the drop in oil prices...it will make the mortgage crisis look small

the answer is simple: stop those long term productive jobs from going overseas and create long term productive work here (yeah we don't need new jobs, just keep the ones we got--but that would be bad for those fat cats, cause the money costs of those wages and salaries cut into their bonuses)

[MrJan]

the answer is simple: stop those long term productive jobs from going overseas and create long term productive work here (yeah we don't need new jobs, just keep the ones we got--but that would be bad for those fat cats, cause the money costs of those wages and salaries cut into their bonuses)

Yes the answer is simple but actually doing it isn't. In reality though it isn't jobs that is causing the problems, certainly not in the UK, it's people borrowing money which they can't afford to pay back which means that banks are in trouble which means that now people can't borrow money at all which means that there isn't any progress. Sadly I think that the only real option is to sit tight, wait it out and hope that it isn't your head on the chopping block.

[BDunnell]

the answer is simple: stop those long term productive jobs from going overseas

So you don't believe in the free market, then?

This is the essential contradiction inherent in your viewpoint.

[Rollo]

Seems bama has decided that he will create millions of new jobs....whoopie...all sorts of construction work....whoopie.....


If you simply let business do want it wants, then because of the profit motive it will naturally find the cheapest source of inputs including labour. That of course stands to reason.

But building infrastructure requires foresight of a far greater degree than just the bottom line at the end of the tax year. Dare I remind you that your national interstate system came about because of an Eisenhower administration who at the time saw well beyond the term of office.

You sir are quite myopic. Your response to this article proves it and especially a coment like this:

the answer is simple: stop those long term productive jobs from going overseas and create long term productive work here
If it is that simple then please pray tell what motive there is for business to stop jobs from going overseas?

[BDunnell]

If you simply let business do want it wants, then because of the profit motive it will naturally find the cheapest source of inputs including labour. That of course stands to reason.

But building infrastructure requires foresight of a far greater degree than just the bottom line at the end of the tax year. Dare I remind you that your national interstate system came about because of an Eisenhower administration who at the time saw well beyond the term of office.

You sir are quite myopic. Your response to this article proves it and especially a coment like this:

If it is that simple then please pray tell what motive there is for business to stop jobs from going overseas?

Excellent post. There are two things that, I've noticed, turn everyone into socialists even if they aren't — the money in sport and the outsourcing of jobs.

[veeten]

The first post sorta reminds me of two ways that one looks at a recently killed animal: either you take it to a lab and disect it to learn more or you just whack at it with a stick.

guess which choice it resembles... :dozey:

If one has to look at this situation, it happened over time than overnight... 45+ years worth.

This is what happens when the heads and directors of corporations choose, instead of putting some of their profits back into the operation in the form of improved productivity, to artificially inflate their pay or 'cook the books' to impress investors and shareholders (ENRON, Worldcom, etc.).

This is what happens when unions decide, as a long-standing method, to inflate labor costs well beyond the market in collective bargaining agreements to the point that benifit & pension deals can drive a business right into bankrupcy court (Chapter 11).

This is what happens when investment companies choose to get into areas that they know very little about, to the tune of billions of dollars, and with the help of the federal gov't, hide these securities in the portfolios of companies, organizations, and individual investors. It's only when the bottom fell out, as the smarter set found out about them and left, that the 'house of cards' unraveled.

Now, all of these 'individuals' come to the legislatures, hat in hand, looking to clear decades of bad decisions with taxpayer funds.

Blame those that were involved in the creation, percipitation, and participation in this colossal goat-screw, in Congress, Business, and Labor.

[airshifter]

The first post sorta reminds me of two ways that one looks at a recently killed animal: either you take it to a lab and disect it to learn more or you just whack at it with a stick.

guess which choice it resembles... :dozey:

If one has to look at this situation, it happened over time than overnight... 45+ years worth.

This is what happens when the heads and directors of corporations choose, instead of putting some of their profits back into the operation in the form of improved productivity, to artificially inflate their pay or 'cook the books' to impress investors and shareholders (ENRON, Worldcom, etc.).

This is what happens when unions decide, as a long-standing method, to inflate labor costs well beyond the market in collective bargaining agreements to the point that benifit & pension deals can drive a business right into bankrupcy court (Chapter 11).

This is what happens when investment companies choose to get into areas that they know very little about, to the tune of billions of dollars, and with the help of the federal gov't, hide these securities in the portfolios of companies, organizations, and individual investors. It's only when the bottom fell out, as the smarter set found out about them and left, that the 'house of cards' unraveled.

Now, all of these 'individuals' come to the legislatures, hat in hand, looking to clear decades of bad decisions with taxpayer funds.

Blame those that were involved in the creation, percipitation, and participation in this colossal goat-screw, in Congress, Business, and Labor.

That has to be one of the most correct posts on what created this mess that I've seen since everyone started throwing their opinions in. As the entire world realizes the ripples created in the global economy, I do think however, that even you have missed one point I feel very valid.

Much of this, as you have stated, comes down to greed and lack of responsible actions. But, the world as consumers want more, and we have created part of that greed. And for the most part, a lot of people have not been financially responsible, and have not lived within their means.

People wanted more, and most people didn't slow down enough to figure out if they could afford more before they jumped for it.



Obama has already contradicted his campaign statements on the windfall taxes, and he seems to be coming to the reality that all those promises will cost money. He's even admitted it won't be a time to worry about short term defecits.

I don't agree. He needs to have enough backbone (along with all the other politicians) to tell people we need to just work though the times. There is no such thing as free ice cream.

[Jag_Warrior]

the answer is simple: stop those long term productive jobs from going overseas and create long term productive work here (yeah we don't need new jobs, just keep the ones we got--but that would be bad for those fat cats, cause the money costs of those wages and salaries cut into their bonuses)

I'd sort of like to get on an "A" (A- or B+ in my case) list so I'd be invited to a certain Christmas party that'll take place in Georgetown in a couple of weeks. Clearly the answer is simple: I need someone on that (or some other) "A" list to take me and then I'm in like Flynn. I've got my potential dates narrowed down to Brooke Shields, Ivanka Trump or Patricia Kluge. They say Patricia is beginning to forget things now, but I doubt I'll be able to convince her to let me get in her Bentley.

Quite often, "simple answers" aren't always so easy to implement. Oh well... it's the thought that counts.

Short of a big, heaping dose of National Socialism, I'm not sure how Obama, or anyone else, can stop those "long term productive jobs" from leaving the U.S. for lower labor cost countries. The proposed tax break for U.S. based job creation is a good starting point, IMO. But that's all to do with a long(er) term economic strategy. The measures that you're speaking about, along with the other fiscal and monetary proposals, are to do with the here & now of creating a soft landing for the deepening recession... that President Obvious finally realized we have been in for a year or more.

Arthur Laffer isn't yet dissatisfied with what he has seen from Obama. And anyone who is farther to the right than the Father of Supply Side economics probably needs a check-up.

Hopefully the country (and the world) comes back strong in 12-16 months. But in the mean time, it's been suggested to me that I need to start working on my Spanish... or I can choose to pursue opportunities elsewhere. So if anyone finds a way to make that "simple answer" come to life before I start shopping for una casa in Mexico, do PM me.

Mexico: I like the women, but I can't stand hot weather.

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't agree. He needs to have enough backbone (along with all the other politicians) to tell people we need to just work though the times. There is no such thing as free ice cream.

Right or wrong, as unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcies continue to creep up, the public will demand increased federal intervention. The politicians who stand in the way of the Keynesian fixes will be compared to Hoover... and will find themselves heading back to their home districts sooner than they expected.

Eh, a trillion here and a trillion there... What's a few bucks between friends, neighbors and countrymen? ;) :D

[schmenke]

Right or wrong, as unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcies continue to creep up, the public will demand increased federal intervention. ...

The same public that currently demands an affordable price on their Sony 50" plasma t.v.... :dozey:

[TOgoFASTER]

You are what you eat.

[Tomi]

You are what you eat.

True, and some eat on credit.

[Jag_Warrior]

The same public that currently demands an affordable price on their Sony 50" plasma t.v.... :dozey:

Yep, same one. If Sony doesn't get its price in line, the consumer will buy a Samsung. And if Senator A doesn't react as "demanded", the voter will cast his lot with Senator B.

We have few leaders. But we have many a man (and woman) who chases the vote.

[MrJan]

Yep, same one. If Sony doesn't get its price in line, the consumer will buy a Samsung.

Or Sony will just talk to Samsung and set a price that they both like ;)

[Eki]

the answer is simple: stop those long term productive jobs from going overseas and create long term productive work here (yeah we don't need new jobs, just keep the ones we got--but that would be bad for those fat cats, cause the money costs of those wages and salaries cut into their bonuses)
The only mean free market capitalism allows for doing that is cutting your salaries and wages to the level of those in China and India.

[schmenke]

The only mean free market capitalism allows for doing that is cutting your salaries and wages to the level of those in China and India.

You can then kiss collective bargaining goodbye...

[Roamy]

I wanna drive the back hoe with a picture of J Lo on the dash!!!!

[markabilly]

As usual, all of you miss the point.
First there is no such creature as free trade.

What does occur is that a company moves many jobs overseas, then plays the game of having the foreign arm send a real big bill (sometimes MORE than it cost to keep the job in the USA) that does not represent the true cost, but they put the money in some off shore bank account, while not payingg the taxes they would have to pay if it were not for the shenigans.

As to free trade, the european market has been protected from free trade, big time, for years. Japan, China and India have huge tariffs on certain imports that no way resemble our tariffs in complexity or protectionism.

Bottom line is big spending to create a bunch of minimum wage jobs will only have a short term effect of creating a false sense of prosperity....so people can buy stuff made overseas.....

The loans and the bank failures are the symptoms of the problem, they are not the cause ofthe problem. Layofffs and lack of work is the problem.

Treating the symptoms rather than the cause, only hides the problem for a little longer, but cures nothing.

[Roamy]

You are what you eat.

sh!t I am a bottle of $10 cab - what are you??

[MrJan]

The loans and the bank failures are the symptoms of the problem, they are not the cause ofthe problem. Layofffs and lack of work is the problem.

No. Layoffs and lack of work is caused by stupid loans. Basically people have been leant money that they can't afford to repay. This means that banks have less money which then means that they give less loans. less loans means less construction and less construction screws everything.

[Roamy]

well if we base growth on physical growth then soon we run out of planet.
Which country has no population growth and a stable economy??

[leopard]

The loans and the bank failures are the symptoms of the problem, they are not the cause ofthe problem. Layofffs and lack of work is the problem.

Managing a bank just like managing a household, how clever a family managing their income in order not to be deficit but otherwise to be productive to cover their daily operational and must allocate certain amount to make the cash getting bigger.

The careful and selective loan, investment only be made for the productive project, or giving it only to those can ensure the bank to repay the loan seems to be the key to avoid the failure of bank clearance.

[markabilly]

Managing a bank just like managing a household, how clever a family managing their income in order not to be deficit but otherwise to be productive to cover their daily operational and must allocate certain amount to make the cash getting bigger.

The careful and selective loan, investment only be made for the productive project, or giving it only to those can ensure the bank to repay the loan seems to be the key to avoid the failure of bank clearance.



Geeeeass, U be the man for bama, yessirr, and all the other fat cats.

See when people ain't got not job, because they done sent it to china or not enough other folks got a job so they got the money to buy stuff from your employer,(or when they got a job, but buying stuff from another country), then the employer cant pay you, and so your job goes bye-bye, then at some very quick point, you ain't gonna be paying on da mortgage, cuase you got no money, no matter how good a little boy you been in da past

But you think it is all the bank fault cause they made you a loan or is it because of greed (lead by the Demes) where all those derivatives and their insurance caused humpty-dumpty to fall off wall street.......

[rah]

Geeeeass, U be the man for bama, yessirr, and all the other fat cats.

See when people ain't got not job, because they done sent it to china or not enough other folks got a job so they got the money to buy stuff from your employer,(or when they got a job, but buying stuff from another country), then the employer cant pay you, and so your job goes bye-bye, then at some very quick point, you ain't gonna be paying on da mortgage, cuase you got no money, no matter how good a little boy you been in da past

But you think it is all the bank fault cause they made you a loan or is it because of greed (lead by the Demes) where all those derivatives and their insurance caused humpty-dumpty to fall off wall street.......

Just a few points for clarification:

Hasn't Obama's plan asked for more infrastucture development? I am not sure how I see the building of a bridge being outsourced to China or India. Construction jobs cannot be outsorced to other countries. Nor are construction jobs minimum wage. If you are talking about the manufacturing of some construction materials, well some of that will go overseas but that is capitalism for you and I can't see why some if it should not go overseas.

The problem with the credit crisis is down to banks and poor lending. Not greed on the part of people applying for a loan. All people are greedy, not just democrats. If I have money that someone wants to borrow, it is up to me to asses how likely it is that someone will pay it back. If I lend $100.00 bucks to someone that I don't know and they do not pay me back it is my own stupid fault for not checking them out. I can't see how this should change if someone wants to borrow $500,000.00 from a bank.

[MrJan]

I've been thinking about this today and the problem with American manufacturing (as with British) is that most of it just isn't that good. Most countries don't have cars built in the US because they are reknowned for being bad (again as is the same with us lot) and if you aren't building a decent product for the right price then you can't complain when people go somewhere else that is. Without having the low wage man power equal to China or the like it will be impossible for the USA to snatch back manufacturing work from other countries.

I also don't believe that people cannot be apportioned some of the blame. I personally don't have any loans, I drive a s***e car because I can't afford to buy a better one, okay so I could take out a loan but then I have to pay interest on that which I probably can't afford. There is a difference between greed and stupidity and if you borrow more money than you can afford to pay back then you are stupid.

[Jag_Warrior]

Just a few points for clarification:

Hasn't Obama's plan asked for more infrastucture development? I am not sure how I see the building of a bridge being outsourced to China or India. Construction jobs cannot be outsorced to other countries. Nor are construction jobs minimum wage. If you are talking about the manufacturing of some construction materials, well some of that will go overseas but that is capitalism for you and I can't see why some if it should not go overseas.

The problem with the credit crisis is down to banks and poor lending. Not greed on the part of people applying for a loan. All people are greedy, not just democrats. If I have money that someone wants to borrow, it is up to me to asses how likely it is that someone will pay it back. If I lend $100.00 bucks to someone that I don't know and they do not pay me back it is my own stupid fault for not checking them out. I can't see how this should change if someone wants to borrow $500,000.00 from a bank.

Excellent post.

While it's true that increased unemployment leads to increases in loan defaults, this latest credit crisis was not linked to a spike up in unemployment. So Markabilly's "symptom & cause" analysis doesn't quite meet with current circumstances. For the past few decades, the U.S. economy has become increasingly dependent on consumer spending to fuel growth. Once we ran out of savings, Greenspan and the Fed, Congress and our last several Presidents (Democrats and Republicans alike) supported cheap and easy credit to almost all sectors of the economy. We eventually reached a negative savings rate, and once we could no longer tap into the equity in our homes and stock accounts, we were done... and so was the economy. As the house of cards created by Wall St. and Washington began to collapse, the credit markets froze up. As we now know, the (technical) recession began late last year. But the big shock to the economy didn't come until subprime mortgages, mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps imploded. Having a job does little to enable a person making $80,000 a year to afford an interest only or option ARM loan on a $500,000 condo... that's now worth $350,000 and the loan terms and payment just reset. And when even a person with a job and an above average credit score cannot secure a loan to buy a car or house or continue funding his business... yep, that is a problem, not a symptom.

Obama's basic stimulus plan is not unique. It, like those used by every President in my lifetime, (including Reagan) is more Keynesian based than anything else: fiscal policy that relies on government deficit spending. And as you very accurately pointed out, many of these are (long neglected) infrastructure projects. I don't read about this everyday, but I believe some longer term funding is also meant for "green jobs". That development will require engineers of all backgrounds: electrical, mechanical, etc. Hardly minimum wage fields. And I suspect that even the "average" (skilled) workers in these fields won't be making $6/hour.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Obama's proposals to date. I could probably argue either side of the debate. But what his critics tend to offer is... well, nothing. If all one can say is, "that won't work" or "that plan is stupid"... fine, what is your plan? Many an American company is feeling the pain right now. And many an American worker is facing some harsh music these days. In fact, the grim reaper is to visit my facility tomorrow. Yours truly may be among the fallen within the next 24 hours. Who knows... :vader:

But I still know what I've always known: they can't kill me and they can't eat me.
F 'em. Bring it on!

[rah]

Lol I know what you mean, I am fighting to keep my company afloat, the construction industry has taken a beeting recently, just like the USA.

[leopard]

Outsourcing projects whether the part of or in its entirety, only the material or with the human resource inclusive will not be a problem, in the event of in compliance with efficiency and feasibility principle.

Performing the project with own power when it have to burden government to spend more than national budget will inflict more deficit that force to look out for more resource to cover the excess whether from increasing tax or any other policy implemented doesn't seem to be in place of effect.

To categorize bank failure as symptom of financial crisis is not wrong, there may be some projects or its primordial they have been financing with not enough liquidity to pay the loan when they are unprofitable to drive it more. But, we can't deny facts that there are banks collapsed amid the healthy global economic situation due to their own fault. imo

[markabilly]

Excellent post.

While it's true that increased unemployment leads to increases in loan defaults, this latest credit crisis was not linked to a spike up in unemployment. So Markabilly's "symptom & cause" analysis doesn't quite meet with current circumstances. For the past few decades, the U.S. economy has become increasingly dependent on consumer spending to fuel growth. Once we ran out of savings, Greenspan and the Fed, Congress and our last several Presidents (Democrats and Republicans alike) supported cheap and easy credit to almost all sectors of the economy. We eventually reached a negative savings rate, and once we could no longer tap into the equity in our homes and stock accounts, we were done... and so was the economy. As the house of cards created by Wall St. and Washington began to collapse, the credit markets froze up. As we now know, the (technical) recession began late last year. But the big shock to the economy didn't come until subprime mortgages, mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps imploded. Having a job does little to enable a person making $80,000 a year to afford an interest only or option ARM loan on a $500,000 condo... that's now worth $350,000 and the loan terms and payment just reset. And when even a person with a job and an above average credit score cannot secure a loan to buy a car or house or continue funding his business... yep, that is a problem, not a symptom.

Obama's basic stimulus plan is not unique. It, like those used by every President in my lifetime, (including Reagan) is more Keynesian based than anything else: fiscal policy that relies on government deficit spending. And as you very accurately pointed out, many of these are (long neglected) infrastructure projects. I don't read about this everyday, but I believe some longer term funding is also meant for "green jobs". That development will require engineers of all backgrounds: electrical, mechanical, etc. Hardly minimum wage fields. And I suspect that even the "average" (skilled) workers in these fields won't be making $6/hour.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Obama's proposals to date. I could probably argue either side of the debate. But what his critics tend to offer is... well, nothing. If all one can say is, "that won't work" or "that plan is stupid"... fine, what is your plan? Many an American company is feeling the pain right now. And many an American worker is facing some harsh music these days. In fact, the grim reaper is to visit my facility tomorrow. Yours truly may be among the fallen within the next 24 hours. Who knows... :vader:

But I still know what I've always known: they can't kill me and they can't eat me.
F 'em. Bring it on!


While it's true that increased unemployment leads to increases in loan defaults, this latest credit crisis was not linked to a spike up in unemployment. So Markabilly's "symptom & cause" analysis doesn't quite meet with current circumstances. For the past few decades, the U.S. economy has become increasingly dependent on consumer spending to fuel growth. Once we ran out of savings, Greenspan and the Fed, Congress and our last several Presidents (Democrats and Republicans alike) supported cheap and easy credit to almost all sectors of the economy. We eventually reached a negative savings rate, and once we could no longer tap into the equity in our homes and stock accounts, we were done... and so was the economy. As the house of cards created by Wall St. and Washington began to collapse, the credit markets froze up


Yes and no-- the consumer spending has been overly dependant on the purchase of foreign goods and on construction for the last 15 years. Growth in America was being primarily fueled by construction. Real estate is notoriously bad about boom and bust cycles, esp from overbuilding. The problem is that there are only so many people coming into the housing market, and the supply for the last four years has been outstripping demand yet prices remained high and easy money was still available, with 100 percent financing.

So when the price does not go up, to sell the house of say 200k to 300k through a realtor, a seller has to bring close to 20k to 30k to the table out of his pocket. Add in a drop of a mere 5 to ten percent in the price of the house, and the total bring to the table goes to 30k to 60k.........

Add in the skyrocketing price of oil that was causing all sorts of economic uncertainity and cut-backs in travel, increased freight costs and so forth, and jobs starting getting further cut along with a tremendous increase of financial and other service jobs going overseas for the last four years involving the financial services and insurance agencies....(manufacturing jobs were already gone)-

What has been ignored is the price of oil was the spark that created the final slide down the hill...the banks and others became very scared as to how would the world and USA possibly function on $200 per barrel oil and credit tightened big time, unempoyment increased, and so on.....it is the domino effect

BTW---do you know what part of AIG was causing them such pain?

It was an overseas company that insured mortgages.....and it was overseas to play games with profits and taxes as I said in another post...the USA was essentially bailing out with a 150 billion dollars, an overseas company that was going belly up on insuring GERMAN BANKS IN THE MORTGAGE BUSINESS


Obama's basic stimulus plan is not unique. It, like those used by every President in my lifetime, (including Reagan) is more Keynesian based than anything else: fiscal policy that relies on government deficit spending. And as you very accurately pointed out, many of these are (long neglected) infrastructure projects. I don't read about this everyday, but I believe some longer term funding is also meant for "green jobs". That development will require engineers of all backgrounds: electrical, mechanical, etc. Hardly minimum wage fields. And I suspect that even the "average" (skilled) workers in these fields won't be making $6/hour

The problem is that the economists are too stupid to understand how real changes in the structure, change everything. I learned all about Keynes, esp. one very immutuable absolute law was that you could have high inflation with low unemployment or high unemployment with low inflation but you could not have both high inflation and high unemployment at the same time...then came the late seventies to through the 1980's, and guess what? We did.

So well duh.....structure had changed....

So what worked well in the 1930 for Hitler in germany (and the roosevelt keynesian cure was an immitation fo what hitler was already doing successfully) all worked because the currency flow was limited to inside these countries.

This is NOT true of the USA...oil is costing many dollars which goes outside the country; all these other goods, it is all the same. When such products are bought, it does not cause money to circulate inside the country as it did in 1930's; no new jobs are created here

All bama is going to do is to do what you say the banks have done, except he will be using taxes and printing presses that will cause a great deal of inflation....creating again what you already acknowledge happenned when you say: Greenspan and the Fed, Congress and our last several Presidents (Democrats and Republicans alike) supported cheap and easy credit to almost all sectors of the economy. We eventually reached a negative savings rate, and once we could no longer tap into the equity in our homes and stock accounts, we were done... and so was the economy.

the difference is that it will involve the US Treasury and a big dose of inflation......rather than banks....with the same false prosperity and ultimate result

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Obama's proposals to date. I could probably argue either side of the debate. But what his critics tend to offer is... well, nothing. If all one can say is, "that won't work" or "that plan is stupid"... fine, what is your plan?

my plan is simple yet impossible for cat cats to swallow....first and foremost, imports must be taxed or tarriffed on a product category so that the balance of trade is close to equal or higher as to those jobs that we want here so as to create demand internally....companies must be taxed so whatever they import to put in cars is also so taxed and so forth.....overseas services that could employ americans here but do not must be treated the same as though they did with massive penalities to make them change their minds....cut the ability of companies to use "expenses" to hide funds overseas---increase income taxes for people who make over 2 million a year to 80%---did you know that a uniform tax rate where everyone making over a hundred thousand a year pays the same tax rate as someone who makes 75k a year, would virtually wipe out the deficit of 2007??


Encourage smart growth in industries likely to create and keep a skilled educated workforce on a long term basis....people may fuss about the cost of Nasa, but that agency has done more for this country and technology then any other agency in the world

Now the short term effect (5 years or so) of such measures will be extremely painful---and that is why we have Bama and McCain saying things like my tax cut is better, cause they want to get elected and not one of them has the guts to dare to say anything like what I just said....NOT one--and that is why I did not vote for either of them




But I still know what I've always known: they can't kill me and they can't eat me.


Want to bet???

No they will just convert your body into cooking oil or grease and use it to fuel some limo or jet plane for the wealthy

F 'em. Bring it on!

okay do u prefer the limo or the jet....

[Jag_Warrior]

I doubt you'll ever get the opportunity to vote for a candidate who proposes radically higher taxes and protectionist trade measures (especially during a recession). The only way for the government to enforce many of your suggestions would be for national socialism to become more palatable to Americans... and I doubt that'll ever happen. To keep wealth from leaving the country (and it surely would), Draconian laws and the military would probably be needed. That might get tricky. :vader:

But even in a light dose, promotion of tariffs and duties to create the illusion of domestic competitiveness has never worked longer term. But if one wants to try Smoot-Hawley Part II, hopefully it'll be done on a commune in Israel or somewhere. But not here. Not ever (again).

[markabilly]

I doubt you'll ever get the opportunity to vote for a candidate who proposes radically higher taxes and protectionist trade measures (especially during a recession). The only way for the government to enforce many of your suggestions would be for national socialism to become more palatable to Americans... and I doubt that'll ever happen. To keep wealth from leaving the country (and it surely would), Draconian laws and the military would probably be needed. That might get tricky. :vader:

But even in a light dose, promotion of tariffs and duties to create the illusion of domestic competitiveness has never worked longer term. But if one wants to try Smoot-Hawley Part II, hopefully it'll be done on a commune in Israel or somewhere. But not here. Not ever (again).


Worked great in Japan since WWII...indeed, the same for China and India, esp. China!!!

Well, okay those countries do not rely merely on tarriffs, as they use many other barriers to trade.

Funny thing is that the response of all these countries to Smoot-Hawley was to increase their own tarriffs and trade barriers which were already higher than the American barriers and then kept them higher, especially as to certain products.

In a 1951 survey, while many portions of H-S were still intact, only 7 countries had a lower tarrif rate (and one of them was Japan with a 1.6% rate, yet the japanese market was and remains the toughest to sell any goods in from overseas with special quotoas and commodity taxes on many different products!!!)

Before WWII, GB had been very dependant on Swiss clocks and watches, so when the supply was cut, the country had a major watch/clock crisis and after WWII, they rebuilt and protected their own watch and clock industries.

And so it is with this country. We let ourselves be at the mercy and dependence on others because we have always had fewer barriers to trade then all but a small minority of other countries, and once again the chickens come home.

As to national socialism, we been there for a long time....the bailout should be enough to prove that beyond ANY doubt.....

In any event, you fail to answer the critical question: Limo or jet?

[Jag_Warrior]

Not only does the U.S. now depend on imported products and commodities, it also depends on imported financing. Jack up trariffs and duties and raise the top marginal tax rate to 80%, some sort of new "enforcement structure" would be needed. You won't find many who will willingly play that game. What would be gained by creating make believe industries that could only sell products in the U.S., and only here because their competition had been shut out? But once the Chinese and others stopped or slowed their intake of Treasuries in retaliation, we'd be finished anyway.

And the idea that we need to be more like zero growth Japan, with its zombie corporations and robot citizenry, doesn't really appeal to me. As for national socialism, what we have now is bad enough. But to take it to the degree that you described, would not happen. Just as it should, the American public is already pushing back on the current bailout craze. I suggest grabbing all the guns before trying any of this. Americans do have those disturbing violent tendencies when government gets too loopy.

Limo or jet? Me and my NRA Life and GOA brothers will be taking both, if it comes to that. How could this be? Well, what do you say to a man holding an AK47 with a 75 round drum? Whatever he tells you to say. "Take my car. Take my house. Take my daughter. Take anything but my life." :s mokin:

[Roamy]

Limo or jet? Me and my NRA Life and GOA brothers will be taking both, if it comes to that. How could this be? Well, what do you say to a man holding an AK47 with a 75 round drum? Whatever he tells you to say. "Take my car. Take my house. Take my daughter. Take anything but my life." :s mokin:

well I have a couple of problems here:
1. AK47 is foreign made
2. One would have a tough go taking my daughter
3. But in anticipation I am beginning to look at how to obtain a AA 12 :p

[veeten]

Uh oh, looks like America's mayors are on Capitol Hill, looking for a infrastructure stimulus package.

Funny, what some call 'infrastructure'...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122887075956093233.html

[leopard]

There were foreign investors involved for the longest flyover in the city to enhance industry get flourishing, built couple years ago. They might also delegate some expert to accelerate construction of the infrastructure. The majority holder of which belonged to that of Kuwait, they might be able to help...

[chuck34]

If you want to do infrastructure stuff, fine, it needs to be done. But do not look at it as a long term economic solution. Just look at the Great Depresion and all of FDR's work progress stuff.

[fizzicist]

Some interesting reading here for a limey.

America is the land of the free, right?

The continued economic success of the USA has a lot to do with free trade, low taxes & de-regulation. "Regeanomics" I believe? (Milton Friedman has a lot to say here too...)

Consequently, it's quite a right wing country - economically conservative and socially very conservative. We've all seen a sustained period of economic growth to such an extent that it's seen as an individuals right to have a widescreen tv, 'five cars and all that goes with being a rock star' (copyright Cypress Hill, 199something)...

As a result of laissez-faire economic approach you have to have a 'hands off' strategy to commerce and industry. Which simply means that industries that can be run cheaper overseas and the end product shipped in will always die out. Survival of the fittest and all that. Britain too has become a tertiary (i.e. service sector) economy.

Net result is that the USA, much like the UK, has lost a great deal of it's domestic primary and secondary sectors. (i.e. mining and manufacturing) in the name Reaganomics or 'survival of the fittest'.

Yet, now, such a fiercely independent (some would actually say xenophobic) nation is now being forced to acknowledge that it can no longer be self sufficient and in order to continue it's socioeconomic growth is going to have to severely readjust it's attitudes to the rest of the world. Maybe in the grand scheme of things, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of foreign policy is about to change as a result of the economic situation...

The irony is, that Dubya managed to take the USA from a position of "no national debt" to "completely screwed" in 8 short years...if American foreign policy had been a little more open minded perhaps the mess wouldn't be quite so huge...

[airshifter]

The irony is, that Dubya managed to take the USA from a position of "no national debt" to "completely screwed" in 8 short years...if American foreign policy had been a little more open minded perhaps the mess wouldn't be quite so huge...

You're claiming there was no national debt in the US 8 years ago?

[chuck34]

Some interesting reading here for a limey.

America is the land of the free, right?

The continued economic success of the USA has a lot to do with free trade, low taxes & de-regulation. "Regeanomics" I believe? (Milton Friedman has a lot to say here too...)

Consequently, it's quite a right wing country - economically conservative and socially very conservative. We've all seen a sustained period of economic growth to such an extent that it's seen as an individuals right to have a widescreen tv, 'five cars and all that goes with being a rock star' (copyright Cypress Hill, 199something)...

As a result of laissez-faire economic approach you have to have a 'hands off' strategy to commerce and industry. Which simply means that industries that can be run cheaper overseas and the end product shipped in will always die out. Survival of the fittest and all that. Britain too has become a tertiary (i.e. service sector) economy.

Net result is that the USA, much like the UK, has lost a great deal of it's domestic primary and secondary sectors. (i.e. mining and manufacturing) in the name Reaganomics or 'survival of the fittest'.

Yet, now, such a fiercely independent (some would actually say xenophobic) nation is now being forced to acknowledge that it can no longer be self sufficient and in order to continue it's socioeconomic growth is going to have to severely readjust it's attitudes to the rest of the world. Maybe in the grand scheme of things, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of foreign policy is about to change as a result of the economic situation...

The irony is, that Dubya managed to take the USA from a position of "no national debt" to "completely screwed" in 8 short years...if American foreign policy had been a little more open minded perhaps the mess wouldn't be quite so huge...

So let me sum up here ... Bush is bad, um-kay.

What an increadably short sighted world view. Unfortunatly that is pretty much how everybody sees things now.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I will just say this. Obama was campaigning a year ago to lead a far different USA then the one he will take the helm of in the new year.

I had not much hope for Obama. He did sound like everyman's socialist wet dream (if you believe in Government down control of every aspect of economic life) when he was courting the left of the Democratic party in primary season....but lately I wonder if he will do much different than Bush.

There is so many left wing pinko's out there who think this guy walks on water who are in for one hell of a rude shock when Obama pretty much does what a Republican President would do. Lets face the reality. Bush in the last few months has done thing that a Democratic President would do. Bush pushed for the bank bail out and is pushing to help the Automakers. Many people in his party are pretty much horrified by this. So I wonder what Obama really will do. He has done a lot of talking and so far he seems to be interested in just making sure the Gov. of Illnois doesn't torpedo his first 100 days with bad political connections!

Seriously tho, no US president coming into this mess can do a hell of a lot. This economic funk was born out of bad banking practices (bred by the Dem's as much as Bush's being asleep at the switch) and the US's inate ability to borrow money to fuel the economic engine. Every now and then the engine runs too rich and it floods out.

The fact most of the world is suffereing as well is due mainly to the US's size in the world trade market, not for anything really any other nation did. That said, it will be the US that pulls us out. The Chinese would do WELL to remember that fact.

I think this recession was really long overdue, but it isn't the great depression yet and likely wont be. The last time the economy sucked this hard? Jimmy Carter's driving the ship of state onto the sand bar with his socialist and inept running of the economy. Anyone remember the "misery index" How about those interest rates of close to 20% for mortgages? The US economy finally actually showed negative growth in the 3rd quarter of this year. It grew in the quarter after the WTC went down and that was with 20% of the brokers on Wall St. dying in one day. You have to really wonder how the economy does what it does.....and then realize no goverment can stop downturns. They are part of the capitalistic system. We are going to have them...and they are usually caused when sound business principles (such as lending money to buy houses that the people cannot pay back at a governments behest- Hello Bill Clinton and George Bush) are interfered with.

Let things go through what they do, and within 18 months you will see the growth coming back.

[leopard]

Economic crisis is likely to take long time for its recovery. We can't simply hope an instant change performed by the new president. There are a lot of parameters how much leading change for the effective remedial measures is undergoing. The positive economic growth although in its smallest scale seems to be the concrete evidence to measure the effectiveness carried out besides creating the more conducive climate to initiate more sector of industries alive.

After all, creating jobs would be more wise not only to put responsibility on the hand of president, but every of us is a doer. While the crisis hits considerable part of industries, the rest have the sharp ability to see each opportunity behind a substance so that they can sprout up and growing bigger.

[ioan]

As usual, all of you miss the point.
First there is no such creature as free trade.

What does occur is that a company moves many jobs overseas, then plays the game of having the foreign arm send a real big bill (sometimes MORE than it cost to keep the job in the USA) that does not represent the true cost, but they put the money in some off shore bank account, while not payingg the taxes they would have to pay if it were not for the shenigans.

As to free trade, the european market has been protected from free trade, big time, for years. Japan, China and India have huge tariffs on certain imports that no way resemble our tariffs in complexity or protectionism.

Bottom line is big spending to create a bunch of minimum wage jobs will only have a short term effect of creating a false sense of prosperity....so people can buy stuff made overseas.....

The loans and the bank failures are the symptoms of the problem, they are not the cause ofthe problem. Layofffs and lack of work is the problem.

Treating the symptoms rather than the cause, only hides the problem for a little longer, but cures nothing.

Totally agree.

[ioan]

No. Layoffs and lack of work is caused by stupid loans. Basically people have been leant money that they can't afford to repay.

And they are not able to pay it because they don't have a (decent) job, because their jobs were exported to China.

[ioan]

Just a few points for clarification:

Hasn't Obama's plan asked for more infrastucture development? I am not sure how I see the building of a bridge being outsourced to China or India. Construction jobs cannot be outsorced to other countries. Nor are construction jobs minimum wage. If you are talking about the manufacturing of some construction materials, well some of that will go overseas but that is capitalism for you and I can't see why some if it should not go overseas.

And how many bridges and other constructions are needed?! Are you going to fill the US with bridges on top of bridges?
Who is going to pay for all those bridges and with what money?
And who the heck needs so many bridges?

To lay it square, it's stupid to build something only to make so many millions of (actually) useless jobs.
We should not produce things only because we need more jobs, that's plain stupid. And all this only because someone decided that sport shoes, socks etc. should be produced in China because this way they will have a bigger profit than the one they had when all those were produced in the US or Europe.

[BDunnell]

And they are not able to pay it because they don't have a (decent) job, because their jobs were exported to China.

And given that you presumably believe in a market economy, what is wrong with that?

[ioan]

And given that you presumably believe in a market economy, what is wrong with that?

Take a look around you and you'll see what is wrong with that.

Any country that is importing more than exporting will go bust sooner or later.
Well this is the case for the US.

There are few countries that are doing it the other way around (Germany and China spring to mind).

The US has been doing this for ages and were not stressed at all because they know that the green paper is still the base for world wide trade and that the FED can print as much of it as they wish.

But hey, what if that wasn't the case anymore?!
I'll let you answer this.

[BDunnell]

Take a look around you and you'll see what is wrong with that.

Any country that is importing more than exporting will go bust sooner or later.
Well this is the case for the US.

There are few countries that are doing it the other way around (Germany and China spring to mind).

The US has been doing this for ages and were not stressed at all because they know that the green paper is still the base for world wide trade and that the FED can print as much of it as they wish.

But hey, what if that wasn't the case anymore?!
I'll let you answer this.

So you don't believe in a free market economy any more, then?

I absolutely agree with you that the system's failings are being shown up, but don't think you can believe in the free market — which I thought you did — and oppose the departure of jobs from countries like the US.

[Tomi]

Take a look around you and you'll see what is wrong with that.

Any country that is importing more than exporting will go bust sooner or later.
Well this is the case for the US.

There are few countries that are doing it the other way around (Germany and China spring to mind).

The US has been doing this for ages and were not stressed at all because they know that the green paper is still the base for world wide trade and that the FED can print as much of it as they wish.

But hey, what if that wasn't the case anymore?!
I'll let you answer this.

Thats true, already there has been now and then wishes that the trade should be done in a more stabile currency than the usd, and if us continue with a same kind of irrisponsible policy that is based on borrowing money to been able to keep up the trade at home, and at the same not care about the national deposit, the voices will become stronger.

[chuck34]

Everyone pretty much agrees that this whole mess has been caused by the credit market seizing up right? The causes of that can be debated from here to eternity, but the credit market is sort of the "root cause". Everyone is talking about how we have to create more liquidity (???sorry I'm having a bad spelling day) in the market. Everyone is mad because the banks aren't lending out the $700B they just got from the government.

So my question is this. What incentive do the banks have to lend out money at the stupid low rates the Fed is giving out now, 0-0.25%. I know that that isn't the rate that you or I would get, but aren't all rates tied together somehow?

[ioan]

So you don't believe in a free market economy any more, then?

I absolutely agree with you that the system's failings are being shown up, but don't think you can believe in the free market — which I thought you did — and oppose the departure of jobs from countries like the US.

I have nothing against commercial exchanges or against a free circulation of goods, but it should be done in a responsible way.

What are people in the US and Europe going to do to earn money if all the production is done in China and India?

1.Chinese and Indians do not earn enough to buy all they produce, and if nothing is done about it US and European citizens won't be able to buy anything cause they will be all jobless.
2.The day we won't be able to buy the Chinese and Indian products their factories will go bust and they will be jobless too! Not good I would say.
Couple that with the ever increasing number of immigrants (whom should have went to China and India cause there were more jobs than here), and you get a social disaster in the making in the civilized world.

There are other stupid things being done. An example:

3. Most of the European vegetables are produced in Spain in Almeria (those who saw We Feed the World know what I talk about), in industrial style and quantities.
4. As a consequence most European farmers are going bankrupt or have to be sustained by European or national funds payed by the taxpayers, and sooner or letter they will be jobless too.

IMHO those who think about and implement certain economical models should be intelligent enough to know that these are not going to work forever.
And the got 2 solutions.
1. Make the process slower (we don't need to move all the industry to China and India within 5 years) it should be long enough not too have the effect of an explosion.
2. Have a plan for what people in the developed countries should do once the factory moves to the far east. That means developing a newer industry that needs the skills of these people.
I for one would have done this exodus slowly and would have done it only for a few industries that don't need highly specialized workers.
3. Know how long a certain model should work and anticipate it's downfall by introducing a new one in time to prevent a crisis like the one that we are going to see next year (let's be honest we had a financial crisis until now, but the economical one that is going to hit us all is only starting now).

I'm not an economist but this is how I see the situation. And I also believe that just because someone has a diploma in economy it doesn't mean that he/she would know more than what they learned in their books.

[BDunnell]

I have nothing against commercial exchanges or against a free circulation of goods, but it should be done in a responsible way.

That sums up my view as well. However, I fear that — despite the extent of the current crisis — it will be too hard to get rid of many of the old ways of capitalism.

[ioan]

Everyone pretty much agrees that this whole mess has been caused by the credit market seizing up right? The causes of that can be debated from here to eternity, but the credit market is sort of the "root cause". Everyone is talking about how we have to create more liquidity (???sorry I'm having a bad spelling day) in the market. Everyone is mad because the banks aren't lending out the $700B they just got from the government.

So my question is this. What incentive do the banks have to lend out money at the stupid low rates the Fed is giving out now, 0-0.25%. I know that that isn't the rate that you or I would get, but aren't all rates tied together somehow?

Banks can add a certain percentage to the FED rate when lending money.
My question is: why didn't the government and the FED impose a condition saying that banks will have to lend the money they get in order not to go bankrupt?!

Why did the banks and AIG get all that money? (and it's not only about those 700 bilions, as it seems that the FED did lend 2000 billions more but isn't willing to disclose where the money went).
And why the automotive industry isn't getting those measly 15 billions they so desperately need?!

There are many questions out there that don't have any kind of common sensed answer.
And this is the main problem, the whole thing lacks transparency. And a lack of transparency brings along a lack of trust which in turn means that the banks (or anyone else who has it) are not lending money but for huge rates. And who the hell is going to want money at huge rates?!

You see, the system is so badly conceived an intricate, that it can't go ahead at all anymore, not without huge external help. So, a there is a need to change this whole system. The problem is that the ones on top of it are benefiting from it and are not willing to do it. It was obvious that Obama wasn't going to be able to change it because he isn't the one controlling it.

[Tomi]

it will be too hard to get rid of many of the old ways of capitalism.

Better would to not accept the new ones, for instance the bankers creating new instruments all the time that are based on everything else but productivity, futures for instance or the loans that caused the current crises.

[ioan]

That sums up my view as well. However, I fear that — despite the extent of the current crisis — it will be too hard to get rid of many of the old ways of capitalism.

It's a live or die situation and changes are needed, IMO.

[ioan]

Better would to not accept the new ones, for instance the bankers creating new instruments all the time that are based on everything else but productivity, futures for instance or the loans that caused the current crises.

Yep, and all these became possible with the birth of electronic money we use everyday, money that has no physical backing whatsoever.

[Mark in Oshawa]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism that some intelligence wouldn't fix. First off goods being made in China and shipped to the west is part of capitalism and would be fine IF the Chinese people were able to raise their standard of living to the point where their economy became more like the west in that they became consumers and their market had higher paying middle class jobs.

This process is part of the world's economy really. Everyone bemoans job losses now but they are part of the cycles. Heck, if you were a ditch digger in the late 1890's, you were put out of work by steam shovels and later backhoes. All those people found other jobs in time. As the economy progresses, some job fields contract, other's increase. The key tho is for wages to keep up to some sort of normalcy for the market the worker is in. The governments of the world would be well put to leave this alone for the most part. There is no point in subsidizing workers to do work that the economy doesn't require. This is why infrastructure make work projects are good in the short term at best. Countries may need infrastructure but employing thousands on make work projects just delay the pain and often cost the economy if they are done in such a way to waste precious resources.

[rah]

And how many bridges and other constructions are needed?! Are you going to fill the US with bridges on top of bridges?
Who is going to pay for all those bridges and with what money?
And who the heck needs so many bridges?

To lay it square, it's stupid to build something only to make so many millions of (actually) useless jobs.
We should not produce things only because we need more jobs, that's plain stupid. And all this only because someone decided that sport shoes, socks etc. should be produced in China because this way they will have a bigger profit than the one they had when all those were produced in the US or Europe.

I was using a bridge as an example of infrastructure. Improving infrastructure improves the rest of the economy by enhancing productivity and efficiency. This is basic stuff like improving roads, rail, sea freight and air freight, hospitals and schools. All these examples help a national economy long term.

I have always thought that basic products should be produced in developing nations. Developed nations should be more involved in R&D and early production in order to produce a better product. In other words, the USA should not be producing the same product as China, it should be producing something better. Why compete?

[Alexamateo]

People bemoan outsourcing, and loss of manufacturing, but it is a needless worry.

In 1900, in the U.S. for example, 41% of workers were employed in agriculture, today, it's 2%. Millions of jobs were lost to technology. A personal example is my own father, who fully mechanized in the mid-60's. (That's here in the South, other parts of the country did this much sooner) We went from 10 or so sharecropping families down to two employees, and later down to one full-time employee. Is it sad that those jobs were lost or were those people now free to do other things? I mean, do you really want to go back to the days when 41% of us got up at the crack of dawn in order to plough behind a mule, or take off a month of school in October-November in order to pick cotton by hand?

Manufacturing peaked at 39% of workers in 1943 and is now under 10%. Lots of jobs have been lost to outsourcing/technology, but is that really a terrible thing? Do you want to work in a factory? your kids? We ship out the mundane, monotonous jobs to other countries so we are free to do other things, and our lives and standards of living are better for it. Not only that, the lives of the folks in third world countries are better off too, because now they too participate in the world economy. It sure beats subsistence farming.

A couple of other notes:

Despite losing all these millions of manufacturing jobs, the U.S. is still #1 in manufacturing output, it's just that it's high tech manufacturing meaning high-tech products, or high tech processes where one employee is able to produce what a hundred were able to do before.

Trade deficit's don't mean a thing. Using the US as an example, Florida has a "trade deficit" with other US states. Much more product goes into and is consumed by Floridians than is shipped out, yet it is one of the more prosperous states.

Many decry the amount of consumption in the US, but when the rate of consumption slows here, the world goes into a recession. But, hey, that's not a problem to a supply-sider like me, it just proves the point :p :

[donKey jote]

And how many bridges and other constructions are needed?! Are you going to fill the US with bridges on top of bridges?
Who is going to pay for all those bridges and with what money?
And who the heck needs so many bridges?

I thought most of the bridges in the US were desperately in need of repairs... wasn't mark in oshawa pretty anxious recently about driving over some of them in his megatonner ?

[schmenke]

...I have always thought that basic products should be produced in developing nations. Developed nations should be more involved in R&D and early production in order to produce a better product. In other words, the USA should not be producing the same product as China, it should be producing something better. Why compete?

Competition is the cornerstone to capitalism. R&D is an investment with no short-term financial gains. Consumers want their affordable 50" plasma t.v.'s and they want it now.

[rah]

Competition is the cornerstone to capitalism. R&D is an investment with no short-term financial gains. Consumers want their affordable 50" plasma t.v.'s and they want it now.

True, but plasmas have been out for a while now, are any still being manufactured in the US? Where did the original plasma tv idea come from? R&D. My point is that you can buy a 50" plasma from many different manufacturers, but the company that first brought the product to the market is the one that made the most from it.

[leopard]

People bemoan outsourcing, and loss of manufacturing, but it is a needless worry.

In 1900, in the U.S. for example, 41% of workers were employed in agriculture, today, it's 2%. Millions of jobs were lost to technology. A personal example is my own father, who fully mechanized in the mid-60's. (That's here in the South, other parts of the country did this much sooner) We went from 10 or so sharecropping families down to two employees, and later down to one full-time employee. Is it sad that those jobs were lost or were those people now free to do other things? I mean, do you really want to go back to the days when 41% of us got up at the crack of dawn in order to plough behind a mule, or take off a month of school in October-November in order to pick cotton by hand?

Manufacturing peaked at 39% of workers in 1943 and is now under 10%. Lots of jobs have been lost to outsourcing/technology, but is that really a terrible thing? Do you want to work in a factory? your kids? We ship out the mundane, monotonous jobs to other countries so we are free to do other things, and our lives and standards of living are better for it. Not only that, the lives of the folks in third world countries are better off too, because now they too participate in the world economy. It sure beats subsistence farming.

A couple of other notes:

Despite losing all these millions of manufacturing jobs, the U.S. is still #1 in manufacturing output, it's just that it's high tech manufacturing meaning high-tech products, or high tech processes where one employee is able to produce what a hundred were able to do before.

Trade deficit's don't mean a thing. Using the US as an example, Florida has a "trade deficit" with other US states. Much more product goes into and is consumed by Floridians than is shipped out, yet it is one of the more prosperous states.

Many decry the amount of consumption in the US, but when the rate of consumption slows here, the world goes into a recession. But, hey, that's not a problem to a supply-sider like me, it just proves the point :p :

There is no need to go to live of few decades backwards, technology would be preferable way out as it was created to easing off human jobs. There was tendency that people can easily forget the essence of agriculture and temped to change to sectors involving more technology. Revolutionizing industry as long as it have strong foundation doesn't harm anything, the fact we can't deny that among various industries, agriculture have relative good resistance towards unfavorable condition such as financial crisis.

If not producing goods, people offers service. Goods' motion from point to point relatively visible than service. We can identify that it was shipped out to certain region while sometimes they don't have any product to sell to any other destination for the amount they have received. It is relatively easy understood that they use product imported from elsewhere while they still have enough purchasing power, earned money for service they may offer albeit they don't have enough product to compensate product bought from elsewhere.