Us econmy in dire straits ?

[allix]

I can see why Michigan would be hurting. Domestic car manufacturers have been in trouble for a long time. There's a lot to it, but GM and Ford are paying wages that are uncompetitive with foreign manufacturers, and I doubt they can effectively compete as long as that's the case. I think the unions may have to realize that and give up a bit of ground, since foreign manufacturers are building a lot of cars here in America, and since they don't employ union labor, they're keeping their costs down below what GM and Ford can manage.

Surely sooner or later car manufacturing unions such as I IFPTE would organise the workers at the foreign manufacturers plants? Trade unions are very important, the bosses and managers get enough money, why shouldn't the workers?
If on the other hand these companies are banning there workers from joining trade unions then the companies should be brought to justice.

One of the main political parties in this country has been bleating on for years how we are entitled to anything and everything. It's not fair if someone can't afford a $45K car or $400K house. So, people take the bait, live beyond their means and end up putting the burden not on the wealthy but the responsible people who manage their affairs wisely.

It happens in england too, when tony blair came in power, he even went as far as saying classes do not exist any more.
Rampant consumerist culture is to blame, its ironic how creating a new consumer product market is considered good for choice and the economy on one hand, on the other it creates a society that will want this new product and put themselves in a even worse financial situation.

Surely basic needs such a home, food on the table , good health care should be the priority of any country? and not consumerism.

[snarkout]

...stuff...

Other than your slight detour into the realm of the political, this was a damn fine post.

[snarkout]

Unfortunately "rampant consumerism" is needed for a strong economy. The surest way to collapse a weak economy is to begin hoarding money "en masse." Without "rampant consumerism" money stops flowing, and when money stops flowing jobs are lost, and when jobs are lost there is no longer money to put back in the system. Yes, it is absolutely stupid to buy spinning rims when you are on welfare, but there is a median somewhere, too. The fact is that our economy is, at this point, built on the concept of credit - if credit goes away, so does a large chunk of our economy, even if it's only moneyshifting for profit. Money, and debt specifically, has become a commodity. Basically, if everyone in America started spending and saving wisely at once, our economy would have to make one hell of an adjustment to get back into place. Ugly, but unfortunately true.

[Wally Balljacker]

The economy might be booming for some people, i.e, the people who essentially run society, the ruling class, but for the majority, it's been getting worse for the past 25 years. Wages are going down, hours are going up, and the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. I can speak from experience.

Care to back any of this rhetoric up with anything solid?

There's some good data here:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/4 ... Poor.shtml
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/5 ... rUSA.shtml

[allix]

Unfortunately "rampant consumerism" is needed for a strong economy. The surest way to collapse a weak economy is to begin hoarding money "en masse." Without "rampant consumerism" money stops flowing, and when money stops flowing jobs are lost, and when jobs are lost there is no longer money to put back in the system. Yes, it is absolutely stupid to buy spinning rims when you are on welfare, but there is a median somewhere, too. The fact is that our economy is, at this point, built on the concept of credit - if credit goes away, so does a large chunk of our economy, even if it's only moneyshifting for profit. Money, and debt specifically, has become a commodity. Basically, if everyone in America started spending and saving wisely at once, our economy would have to make one hell of an adjustment to get back into place. Ugly, but unfortunately true.

I wonder how long this model will last for, the Greeks and Romans collapsed eventually......

[Wally Balljacker]

Unfortunately "rampant consumerism" is needed for a strong economy. The surest way to collapse a weak economy is to begin hoarding money "en masse." Without "rampant consumerism" money stops flowing, and when money stops flowing jobs are lost, and when jobs are lost there is no longer money to put back in the system. Yes, it is absolutely stupid to buy spinning rims when you are on welfare, but there is a median somewhere, too. The fact is that our economy is, at this point, built on the concept of credit - if credit goes away, so does a large chunk of our economy, even if it's only moneyshifting for profit. Money, and debt specifically, has become a commodity. Basically, if everyone in America started spending and saving wisely at once, our economy would have to make one hell of an adjustment to get back into place. Ugly, but unfortunately true.

I wonder how long this model will last for, the Greeks and Romans collapsed eventually......

Americans live well beyond their means as it is, mindless consumerism won't solve anything. The mass amounts of profits made by corporations just end up in the hands of the business owners, anyway, while most people struggle to pay their bills on time.

[snarkout]

Number one, it's not a model, it's a conundrum. Who knows if it will collapse, but considering we're taking about a world econmy at this point, I doubt it's going to collape in any spectacular fashion.

Wally, unfortunately those links are just more rhetoric. Listen, I'd *love* to live in a socialist utopia - unfortunately history has shown socialism simply doesn't work the way it "should." You can have a socialist tribe, and even to some extent a socialist commune, you really cannot drive a nations economy with socialism. Some of what Marx and his ilk have said is very true, some of it (much of it, really) is horseshit. My political leanings are extremely leftist, socially, but I'm also all about personal responsibility. Providing jobs, even menial jobs, is not exploitation - it is how economies work. People with the skill or wherewith all to elevate themselves bring home larger paychecks - those without, don't. Sure, workin' the grill at BK sucks, but it's really all one deserves if one cannot come up with a better skillset and one cannot come up with the motivation to elevate one's self. The fact that one was born into a shitty circumstance and had 5 kids at 16 doesn't make one entitled to more - it makes one a victim of society and one's own actions.

There are about 100 different ways to look at any one situation like this, but the bottom line is that the corporation is not bleeding anyone dry, they are paying someone to do the lowest form of service. It would be nice if everyone was born into luxury, and if we all had high paying jobs, but then there wouldn't *be* people to work at BK. Do me this favor, and cite an economy that has ever existed where everyone had sufficient wealth, and where food, cothing, and shelter were not an issue for anyone. Please do not point to tribal/communal living, since, as I have mentioned, this does not scale. There will always be a filthy rich ruling class, and there will always be the impoverished masses - at least until we do construct a utopia.

The fact that BK exists and is frequented at all says a hell of a lot more about Americans than the fact that there are shitty jobs at places like it. The fact that people willingly shovel that poison into their mouths speaks volumes.

[snarkout]

Americans live well beyond their means as it is, mindless consumerism won't solve anything. The mass amounts of profits made by corporations just end up in the hands of the business owners, anyway, while most people struggle to pay their bills on time.

Some Americans do, sure. I should have phrased what I said differently - rampant consumerism is not what builds a healthy economy, but the abrupt cessation of it will surely collapse an economy that now depends on it. Consumerism is not at all limited to the USA.

If you want something to rally against, consider rallying against offshoring of American jobs and textiles. This is far, far more heinous than paying Americans shitty wages for menial jobs.

[snarkout]

Furthermore, look at the dichotomy of your statement. On the one hand, you say that Americans live beyond their means, and on the other you say they don't have enough to make ends meet. Eating at the Golden Arches daily rather than brown bagging it, buying new, fully loaded cars on credit rather than a 5 year old dependable beater, buying Designer shit clothes rather than the exact same threads w/o TOMMY or whatever on them for 3x the price, etc leads to this. There are very few people out there who live frugally and who have worked towards building a career who don't have enough money to "make ends meet" assuming you define this as enough money to pay for food, clothes, and shelter.

[allix]

Do me this favor, and cite an economy that has ever existed where everyone had sufficient wealth, and where food, cothing, and shelter were not an issue for anyone. Please do not point to tribal/communal living, since, as I have mentioned, this does not scale.

You are right, every society where it has worked out has been tribal/communal, many argue that Social Democracy in Sweden provides for everyone the basics, of course at the expensive of high taxes.

[davijordan]

It is surprising what you can do (save money) with info diy websites or going to the library and reading a book. I am not a cook nor would I want to do it for a living, but I find myself making dinner more often. Homemade food tastes better than the commercial establishments and is cheaper. It is surprising how quick meals can me made or made in advance. It is also amazing how fast food chains can stay in business. We no longer go out except at a special time. I guess we have cost an alien or two a job now.

[Brian]

The economy might be booming for some people, i.e, the people who essentially run society, the ruling class, but for the majority, it's been getting worse for the past 25 years. Wages are going down, hours are going up, and the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. I can speak from experience.

Care to back any of this rhetoric up with anything solid?

There's some good data here:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/4 ... Poor.shtml
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/5 ... rUSA.shtml

Quoting from a site called socialistworker.org garners no validity as far as I'm concerned. Socialists have been saying the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer for a lot longer than 25 years. I'm 38 years old and I've been hearing the rich-poor gap theory and that the economy is in dire straits for all my life. Factories close, people get laid off, prices go up yet somehow we never end up with massive soup lines like the 1930's, kids don't share shoes with their siblings, and the GDP continues to grow. People who want to work and succeed always find a way to rebound when things go sour.

One thing people forget is that not all the rich are born rich; many, if not most, are self-made. Opportunity is more important that outcome.

[Wally Balljacker]

Care to back any of this rhetoric up with anything solid?

There's some good data here:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/4 ... Poor.shtml
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/5 ... rUSA.shtml

Quoting from a site called socialistworker.org garners no validity as far as I'm concerned. Socialists have been saying the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer for a lot longer than 25 years. I'm 38 years old and I've been hearing the rich-poor gap theory and that the economy is in dire straits for all my life. Factories close, people get laid off, prices go up yet somehow we never end up with massive soup lines like the 1930's, kids don't share shoes with their siblings, and the GDP continues to grow. People who want to work and succeed always find a way to rebound when things go sour.

One thing people forget is that not all the rich are born rich; many, if not most, are self-made. Opportunity is more important that outcome.

Regardless of the website (I just found it when googling), there are some good hard statistics on there from numerous sources worth knowing.

Sure, some rich folks are self-made, and some of them actually deserve their wealth, but the bottom line is not everyone can become rich and wealthy. The capitalist economic system depends on a working class to prop up the upper classes. It's the illusion of upward mobility that keeps the working class obedient.

I think one only needs to take a look at the inner cities in this country, the cities ravaged by poverty and the war on drugs, to see that things are not always as peachy as they seem.

[Vogateer]

Sure, some rich folks are self-made, and some of them actually deserve their wealth, but the bottom line is not everyone can become rich and wealthy. The capitalist economic system depends on a working class to prop up the upper classes. It's the illusion of upward mobility that keeps the working class obedient.

I think one only needs to take a look at the inner cities in this country, the cities ravaged by poverty and the war on drugs, to see that things are not always as peachy as they seem.

There are certainly a lot of people who have the advantage of their parents wealth, which makes sense. You can learn an awful lot about money from your parents, and a lot of the problems I saw at the bank had absolutely nothing to do with making money, and everything to do with spending all the money you get from every paycheck as soon as you can.

There will always be a gap between rich and poor, but so long as the poor continue to benefit from the improved economy, the rest is just envy. After all, people who are considered poor here are making out like bandits compared to other economies. And I don't see why the goal should be to make everyone equal, or to even lessen the supposed "wealth gap", the goal should be fair treatment before the law. When patents and corporatism become tools to beat down smaller businesses, I get livid, but that's government interference causing problems, which is not the fault of a free market.

Then look at the countries that are improving. Estonia is a star when it comes to applying free market economics. They are the most economically free of the ex-communist countries, have a flat tax, and their economy is booming. I think the leader of the country had only read one economic book, Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, and he just assumed all economists thought like that. He's applied those principles,

Those that are centralizing, like Venezuela, are already causing their economies to stagnate. The people who like Socialism seem to be in love with the idea, but never have I seen it practiced in a way that would make me ever consider it superior to the free market. It reminds me of a professor that visited the U.S.S.R., and thought everything was marvelous and beautiful. He must have seen what he wanted to see, because I can tell you that the former East Germany is horribly depressing in areas that haven't improven yet.

[Wally Balljacker]

Sure, some rich folks are self-made, and some of them actually deserve their wealth, but the bottom line is not everyone can become rich and wealthy. The capitalist economic system depends on a working class to prop up the upper classes. It's the illusion of upward mobility that keeps the working class obedient.

I think one only needs to take a look at the inner cities in this country, the cities ravaged by poverty and the war on drugs, to see that things are not always as peachy as they seem.

There are certainly a lot of people who have the advantage of their parents wealth, which makes sense. You can learn an awful lot about money from your parents, and a lot of the problems I saw at the bank had absolutely nothing to do with making money, and everything to do with spending all the money you get from every paycheck as soon as you can.

There will always be a gap between rich and poor, but so long as the poor continue to benefit from the improved economy, the rest is just envy. After all, people who are considered poor here are making out like bandits compared to other economies. And I don't see why the goal should be to make everyone equal, or to even lessen the supposed "wealth gap", the goal should be fair treatment before the law. When patents and corporatism become tools to beat down smaller businesses, I get livid, but that's government interference causing problems, which is not the fault of a free market.

Then look at the countries that are improving. Estonia is a star when it comes to applying free market economics. They are the most economically free of the ex-communist countries, have a flat tax, and their economy is booming. I think the leader of the country had only read one economic book, Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, and he just assumed all economists thought like that. He's applied those principles,

Those that are centralizing, like Venezuela, are already causing their economies to stagnate. The people who like Socialism seem to be in love with the idea, but never have I seen it practiced in a way that would make me ever consider it superior to the free market. It reminds me of a professor that visited the U.S.S.R., and thought everything was marvelous and beautiful. He must have seen what he wanted to see, because I can tell you that the former East Germany is horribly depressing in areas that haven't improven yet.

Well, first of all, I don't advocate state socialism at all, although I would contend that the USSR was never in fact socialist anyway. The USSR was really just state capitalism in socialist clothes, as seems to be the case with just about any form of supposed communism or socialism. I think any socialism worthy of the name requires authentic, genuine democratic control of the means of production by the working class, and I have yet to see a "communist" state ever actually provide that. Let's not forget the cardinal truth of communism: a classless society without a state power or authority. Does that sound like any communist state you've ever heard of?

I envision a more free form, state-less variety of socialism, an anarcho-collectivist, or anarcho-syndicalist type of society, as experienced during the Spanish Revolution of 1936.