Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

The sentence, which you quoted, is basically in agreement with your above post.

Yes, true. I'm guilty of really only reading half of what I quoted from you.


My focus remains:Beware of the calls for austerity - as BigBagel says, it's really slavery.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

Japan does have big oil imports. But they also have lots of exports.
Japan is more food import dependent than the US. Actually, both countries would
be hurt a lot by rising oil prices. But Japan always had high energy costs/taxes,
so they have small cars, subways, etc.

[Mashuri]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

Japan's rates are about to experience a long-term reversal. They have finally eaten through their domestic savings and, 1) as their export demand falls due to crises with their largest customers (U.S. and Europe), 2) demands on their social programs increase and 3) they can no longer export their inflation through a Yen carry trade, they will be forced to seek more and more external financing for their debt. The sovereign dominoes are falling and Japan is stuck in the lineup.

[Jay]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

Yes, true. I'm guilty of really only reading half of what I quoted from you.


My focus remains:Beware of the calls for austerity - as BigBagel says, it's really slavery.

The problem with pervasive debt slavery is that it eventually kills what is left of the no-so-free market. Without a market, the oligarchs have to work harder to get the stuff they want. Markets behoove those in power. They can order a flat screen and have it delivered next day. Eventually you will need a jubilee to loosen things up again. The end game power players will want it so, once they are comfortable that they sit in the last few chairs when the music really stops.

[Jay]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

Japan does have big oil imports. But they also have lots of exports.
Japan is more food import dependent than the US. Actually, both countries would
be hurt a lot by rising oil prices. But Japan always had high energy costs/taxes,
so they have small cars, subways, etc.

You are understated here. Granted, today commercial agriculture in the US is based on petroleum, but its back bone relies on vast amounts of excellent crop land based near consistently easily navigated waterways. That is a huge long term advantage, no matter how petroleum intensive crops are now.

[*T*]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

Japan's rates are about to experience a long-term reversal. They have finally eaten through their domestic savings and, 1) as their export demand falls due to crises with their largest customers (U.S. and Europe), 2) demands on their social programs increase and 3) they can no longer export their inflation through a Yen carry trade, they will be forced to seek more and more external financing for their debt. The sovereign dominoes are falling and Japan is stuck in the lineup.

Since savings=debt and Japan's debt is mosty domestically held, doesn't this mean they have mostly worked off their debt?

[tsetsefly]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

The word "austerity" in the present financial crisis usually refers not to personal austerity, but rather to slashing the national government's social programs, as part of the theft of a nations resources, real estate, and future tax and income streams by the FIRE economy Masters, the Anglo-American Banksters.

EJ's original post made light of calls for austerity, as if calls for austerity were a confused request of some misguided tea party members (I'm putting words in EJ's mouth here, but as best as I can tell, accurately so.)

Now you're noting that if most Americans had lived an austere life all along, we Americans would not be in this mess (hinting at this mess being the fault of the American people's poor choices.)

What you say may well be true, but your observation distracts, just as EJ's remark distracted, from the meaning that "austerity" holds in the present context. Your observation seems actually to go a step further in the direction that I am warning against. By suggesting ordinary Americans are to blame here, your observation tends to support the austerity provisions that the Banksters would (and have many times before in smaller polities) use to continue and expand their theft.

I am trying to warn here of something. I am trying to stay focused on a particular danger.

The Banksters will encourage indebted nations, corporations and individuals to do whatever they can to meet debt payments, including selling off (nationalizing) property and infrastructure (toll roads, water utilities, ...), including cutting back other programs (austerity), and including raising taxes, all to focus on meeting debt payments ... payments to said Banksters.

The end result is to drive a nation and its businesses and citizens into debt slavery, with any present resource or future income or taxes owned by the Banksters.

Don't go there.

There is plenty of fault to go around here. As in a no-fault divorce or a Chapter 11 reorganization, it is important to focus on establishing a functioning solution for the future, without focusing on who to blame for the past failures.

I agree with your last point on chapter 11. And you forgot to mention that the banks not only want debt slaves but they are also getting bailout money at the same time, plus favorable policies by a government that is completely sold out to the military/FIRE interest...

However, I dont see how letting government continue spending at current levels is going to do anything to solve the problem. Its not like job programs and 10 year unemployment benefits is the solution...

Government cut backs is a must. I see your point but I don't see what your proposing, government default on loans? or just at the household level?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

Government cut backs is a must.

Cutting back much of what they are currently spending on is a must, yes. Cut back military (*), intelligence, medicare (we spend as much as twice per patient as some other advanced nations with equally good or better health), bank bailouts and some other major forms of fraud, corruption and tyranny.

But the notion that the national debt is going to "kill" us if we don't cut back on social programs is a red herring. Granted, with the current overly powerful and overly corrupt federal government in Washington, DC, most spending is tauted as being for some politically acceptable purpose, but ends up benefiting the most powerful one way or the other.

We're kind of between a rock and a hard place here. Whatever would work, won't work, because of the deep fraud, deeply embedded.

(*) Dramatically cut back back military, intelligence and associated off-budget and contract services. Leave middle and central Asia to the nations of Asia.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

Cutting back much of what they are currently spending on is a must, yes. Cut back military (*), intelligence, medicare (we spend as much as twice per patient as some other advanced nations with equally good or better health), bank bailouts and some other major forms of fraud, corruption and tyranny.

But the notion that the national debt is going to "kill" us if we don't cut back on social programs is a red herring. Granted, with the current overly powerful and overly corrupt federal government in Washington, DC, most spending is tauted as being for some politically acceptable purpose, but ends up benefiting the most powerful one way or the other.

We're kind of between a rock and a hard place here. Whatever would work, won't work, because of the deep fraud, deeply embedded.

(*) Dramatically cut back back military, intelligence and associated off-budget and contract services. Leave middle and central Asia to the nations of Asia.

Agree with cutting everything including military spending ( which no party dares to touch) and with obama ramping up the war in Afghanistan and the continued presence of the US in Iraq this will not change..

Cut backs have to also be made for the new privileged class (ie. government workers) who ear 17% more than their private sector counterparts and get loads more of benefits.

What I cant see is how letting government have more control and more money is a good if we have seen who they really work for...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Jobs Crash Update: 1983 versus 2010 - Eric Janszen

What I cant see is how letting government have more control and more money is a good if we have seen who they really work for...

Yep. No solution works with the current government.