Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

[Glenn Black]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Will we (the U.S.) sell them to China, or use them on China :eek:?

The smart play is neither. By false flag actions on both sides of a fence, you start a war between the two sides, then supply your military hardware to both side as long as they have the money.

Better yet, declare neutrality and place an arm embargo to the zone of conflict. Make the weapons available on a fluctuating basis so as to instill a sense of scarcity, which drives prices up to maximum level, plus a risk premium to bypass the embargo, plus a "We don't like you, so we stick it to you on price" premium.

Report daring robberies of US weapon caches to explain some of the leakage if you get caught red handed or suspected. Now that's a true CIA NSA black-ops way to use US of A ingenuity for maximum profit.

Would Wall St. do it any different if it was in their part of the field?

[ASH]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

With defense, defense-related and associated payments for previous defense activities accounting for 54% of the budget, military expenses certainly are the elephant in the American room.

Do you have a source that you could link for that 54% figure? It doesn't match the numbers I come up with.

I figure defense and defense-related expenditures include current national security spending, plus off-budget supplementary appropriations for the wars. I take previous defense activities to be things like the Department of Veterans Affairs. I'm not getting very close to 54% by tallying these things up.

The 54% figure is close to the percentage of military-related discretionary spending. If that's the metric, then by the same token, one could argue that the other elephant in the American room is considering "non-discretionary" entitlements to be "off limits".

[tsetsefly]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Would Smoot-Hawley hurt the U.S. at this point considering how hosed we are? My understanding about the repercussions of the Smoot-Hawley tariff is that it resulted in other nations reciprocating the protectionist measures the U.S. enacted and thus prevented the U.S. from being able to export its way out of the Great Depression.

Being that the U.S. doesn't manufacture much anymore, would it really hurt the U.S. so much to re-industrialize (perhaps with government assistance) and, after the manufacturing companies are set up, enact some sort of Smoot-Hawley tariff against select nations?

The Smoot-Hawley act pretty muchestarted the depression, it made things much worse. I think unemployment nearly doubled 6months to a yeara fter the act.

[GRG55]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Would Smoot-Hawley hurt the U.S. at this point considering how hosed we are? My understanding about the repercussions of the Smoot-Hawley tariff is that it resulted in other nations reciprocating the protectionist measures the U.S. enacted and thus prevented the U.S. from being able to export its way out of the Great Depression.

Being that the U.S. doesn't manufacture much anymore, would it really hurt the U.S. so much to re-industrialize (perhaps with government assistance) and, after the manufacturing companies are set up, enact some sort of Smoot-Hawley tariff against select nations?

The Smoot-Hawley act pretty muchestarted the depression, it made things much worse. I think unemployment nearly doubled 6months to a yeara fter the act.

The USA today is much like the UK in the 1930s...net debtor, an overvalued currency compared to some key trade partners, declining empire struggling to maintain national income.

China today is the equivalent nation to the USA at the onset of the 1930s depression...net creditor, rising industrial and military power, significant exporter.

And, for obvious reasons, it is China today that fears trade barriers and tariffs of any type more than any other nation.

[Marek]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Do you have a source that you could link for that 54% figure? It doesn't match the numbers I come up with.

I figure defense and defense-related expenditures include current national security spending, plus off-budget supplementary appropriations for the wars. I take previous defense activities to be things like the Department of Veterans Affairs. I'm not getting very close to 54% by tallying these things up.

The 54% figure is close to the percentage of military-related discretionary spending. If that's the metric, then by the same token, one could argue that the other elephant in the American room is considering "non-discretionary" entitlements to be "off limits".

Clearly the devil is in the measuring. The numbers I've looked at are for FY2009. The Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War Resisters League claims 54%. I've not compared the three in detail. But I think there is truth in the WRL tally which includes the defense related portions of NASA and the State Dept. as well as the portion of the interest on the national debt resulting from defense expenditures. At the bottom of the WRL site is a yellow box discussing the different calculations.

I believe entitlements are different type of problem. While they are only slightly less off limits than military spending; it has become even more politically taboo to make changes to them. So the elephant is less about how MUCH we spend on entitlements that it is HOW we spend the entitlements. Does anyone doubt the general welfare and the safety net of those least among us would be better served by a reallocation of existing entitlement monies? I could argue there is stimulus in a reallocation. But that is politically impossible in the current climate.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Eventually, as the U.S. empire faces collapse, I expect the most expensive and advanced military weapon systems to be sold to China at bargain prices to raise cash for the increasingly panicing U.S. government..

Do you actually believe the US will sell it's crown jewels when it continues to refuse to do so even with it's closest allies and trading partners Australia, Japan, and the UK.

The US refused to sell the F22(now closed production line) to Australia and Japan as well as even share software source code with program partners in the F35 with the UK and other close allies.

I don't know if your argument is valid if you expect to see direct military weapons system and technology sales.

Especially in light of the fact that China has the greatest potential to usurp global geopolitical and military influence.

If anything, continued US global military dominance is something every US administration will be willing to protect to ensure another potential(but far far uglier) way out of this mess:

Financial reboot as a result of interregional or global conflict.

Military dominance is a wildcard that is not for sale.

[ASH]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Clearly the devil is in the measuring. The numbers I've looked at are for FY2009. The Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War Resisters League claims 54%. I've not compared the three in detail. But I think there is truth in the WRL tally which includes the defense related portions of NASA and the State Dept. as well as the portion of the interest on the national debt resulting from defense expenditures. At the bottom of the WRL site is a yellow box discussing the different calculations.

I believe entitlements are different type of problem. While they are only slightly less off limits than military spending; it has become even more politically taboo to make changes to them. So the elephant is less about how MUCH we spend on entitlements that it is HOW we spend the entitlements. Does anyone doubt the general welfare and the safety net of those least among us would be better served by a reallocation of existing entitlement monies? I could argue there is stimulus in a reallocation. But that is politically impossible in the current climate.

Thanks for the response. I'm working from data reported by OMB for 2009.

Total outlays for FY2009 were $3.518T.

"National Defense" outlays that include

• Military Personnel
• Operation and Maintenance
• Procurement
• Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
• Military Construction
• Family Housing
• "Other"
• Atomic Energy Defense Activities
• "Defense-Related Activities"

total $661B.

"International Affairs" outlays that include

• International Development and Humanitarian Assistance
• International Security Assistance
• Conduct of Foreign Affairs
• Foreign Information and Exchange Activities

total $38B.

"General Science, Space, and Technology" outlays that include

• General Science and Basic Research
• Space Flight, Research, and Supporting Activities

total $29B.

"Veterans Benefits and Services" outlays that include

• Income Security for Veterans
• Veterans Education, Training, and Rehabilitation
• Hospital and Medical Care for Veterans
• Veterans Housing
• "Other Veterans Benefits and Services"

total $95B.

"Gross Interest on Treasury Debt" totals $383B, so assuming the 64% of total debt that isn't held in government accounts (like the Social Security Trust Fund) is attributable to defense, that gives a contribution of about $245B.

So, if I add up all these defense-related components (having over-counted items like spending on science and technology, humanitarian foreign aid, and interest on non-GAS Treasury bonds as 100% defense-related) I come up with $1.068T out of $3.518T, or right around 30%.

Or, you can work the problem backwards to do a sanity check. Add together "Health" ($334B), "Medicare" ($430B), "Income Security" ($533B), and "Social Security" ($683B) and the total is already $1.98T, or about 56%. This is leaving out things like transportation, education, and the share of the interest on the national debt that is associated with government account series bonds. It's hard for me to see how defense-related outlays can be over 50% of the budget, when this subset of clearly civilian programs already exceeds 50% by itself.

I would guess that the "War Resisters League" views defense spending as an ideological issue, and might be biased in their presentation of budget data on defense. Just looking at the raw numbers, I am hard-pressed to reproduce the ratios they claim when I tally up defense related spending by what I consider a generous definition -- including most of the "hidden" categories you mention. Further, when I tally up a short list of spending on programs that are obviously 100% civilian-related, I arrive at a sum that seems to rule out the >50% claim made by WRL. Do the other sources also have an anti-war political agenda? How do you reconcile the raw numbers with WRL's claims?

*EDIT* Ah yes, I see... looking at WRL's box of explanation, they say they exclude entitlement spending in their analysis. WRL implies that including the entitlements in a federal budget analysis is misleading, but I think they are the ones being misleading. From a practical standpoint, people pay payroll taxes and receive entitlement benefits from the government... and federal debt accrues in the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds which someone will one day have to redeem with fresh tax dollars. It is intellectually dishonest to omit entitlement spending and associated tax receipts from an analysis of the federal budget. Pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it go away, and entitlement spending dominates all the long-range fiscal projections for the federal government: it defines the budget problem.

[touchring]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

China is short of low skilled labor - http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14566

Perhaps the US can outsource 200,000 persistently unemployed people to China. The Chinese factories will feed them, house them, and provide a $300 a month pay. They might even start a new call center industry to replace the Indian call centers.

It will help save billions of dollars a year on handouts, social services and security (police, prisons).

[jheis]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

This will happen after the U.S. finds that other countries will not accept its worthless dollars any longer.

[ASH]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

I believe entitlements are different type of problem. While they are only slightly less off limits than military spending; it has become even more politically taboo to make changes to them. So the elephant is less about how MUCH we spend on entitlements that it is HOW we spend the entitlements. Does anyone doubt the general welfare and the safety net of those least among us would be better served by a reallocation of existing entitlement monies? I could argue there is stimulus in a reallocation. But that is politically impossible in the current climate.

Lest my essential agreement with you gets lost in my quibbling over WRL's figures, let me state that I too believe defense spending is too high, and that entitlement spending is politically difficult to re-apportion. Realistically, both have to come down. Defense spending contracted significantly following the Cold War (the supposed power of the defense lobby notwithstanding), and to the extent that our current adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are ellective rather than existential conflicts, I think the defense budget will actually prove politically easier to 'touch' than entitlement spending. I would make social security means-tested, reduce total outlays on Medicare by decreasing the scope of what is covered, and shift a significant portion of the funds presently spent on Medicare to provide health maintenance and preventive care for the young and working-age, and also support education and civilian R&D. Of course, the big losers in such a shift would be the elderly, and I don't delude myself that my priorities would be politically viable. However, the way I see it, once you take away the federal government's ability to abuse debt, you find that we're not such a rich society that we can afford to do everything we might wish to. Providing care for the young and working-age, and making investments in education and technology, maximizes the productivity of our economy, and therefore maximizes what resources we can bring to bear on all our priorities. We need to do something for our elderly, but at any given time, our allocation needs to be proportional to our actual resources. Sinking an ever increasing portion of our limited resources into programs for the elderly is a dead end, and will eat into our seed corn.

[GRG55]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Apparently it's all just a "communications problem"...seems they might need to change out that faulty teleprompter...:rolleyes:

Obama looks on bright side of ugly jobs picture

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For President Barack Obama, there is no good way to frame the jobs message.

Tell it like it is and it could demoralize already glum consumers who might curb spending just when the economy needs a boost. Sugarcoat the outlook and you risk paying the price at the polls if the employment picture does not improve.

Tucked inside Obama's 451-page economic report to Congress this month was this grim reality: Millions of people will be unemployed for years to come...

...Obama has stuck to the tried-and-true political practice of accentuating the positive...

...History suggests his approach makes political sense. The next nine months will tell whether it resonates with voters.

Political analysts point to former President Jimmy Carter's infamous "malaise" speech in 1979, when he spoke of a crisis of confidence infecting the country, as proof that it doesn't pay for politicians to be blunt bearers of bad news.

Carter and many of his fellow Democrats in Congress were swept out of office the following year by Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on an upbeat message...

...Brookings' Galston said Obama made a big mistake in 2009 when he overpromised on what the $787 billion stimulus package could deliver. He said it would cap unemployment. It didn't...

...Galston said he would advise Obama to manage expectations and to speak move bluntly about lingering labor market pain.

"I have always believed that the American people are much more capable of being treated as mature adults than politicians give them credit for," he said...

[Bruno T]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

I wonder what the movie "a day without a Mexican" would look like were it made today. Would it depict near-full employment, honest-work jobs available for the asking, with wages for those lower level jobs raised significantly, to boot?

Hmm, Full employment and a more equitable wage structure in the economy. Oh the horror, the horror.

Globalism. Outside of a classroom, it turns out that it ain't all it's cracked up to be for those living in developed nations (unless you are an economist, a banker, an attorney, a doctor, a sales manager, anyone who owns capital and needs cheap labor to compete, or anyone else in a highly language dependent field who remains mostly immune to its effects on your career)

Then again, christmas tree lights, children's toys, Nike's, clothing, and big screen TV's would cost more. And we all know what a HUGE part of the budget those can be! Much better to be unemployed or underemployed and enjoying those cheap goods.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Lest my essential agreement with you gets lost in my quibbling over WRL's figures, let me state that I too believe defense spending is too high, and that entitlement spending is politically difficult to re-apportion. Realistically, both have to come down. Defense spending contracted significantly following the Cold War (the supposed power of the defense lobby notwithstanding), and to the extent that our current adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are ellective rather than existential conflicts, I think the defense budget will actually prove politically easier to 'touch' than entitlement spending. I would make social security means-tested, reduce total outlays on Medicare by decreasing the scope of what is covered, and shift a significant portion of the funds presently spent on Medicare to provide health maintenance and preventive care for the young and working-age, and also support education and civilian R&D. Of course, the big losers in such a shift would be the elderly, and I don't delude myself that my priorities would be politically viable. However, the way I see it, once you take away the federal government's ability to abuse debt, you find that we're not such a rich society that we can afford to do everything we might wish to. Providing care for the young and working-age, and making investments in education and technology, maximizes the productivity of our economy, and therefore maximizes what resources we can bring to bear on all our priorities. We need to do something for our elderly, but at any given time, our allocation needs to be proportional to our actual resources. Sinking an ever increasing portion of our limited resources into programs for the elderly is a dead end, and will eat into our seed corn.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm thinking it comes down to two things:

1.) Who's going to be the first to tell everybody that what they believed to be a mega-yacht is really just a lifeboat in stormy waters?

2.) Who's going to throw the old people over the side?

I think I'm going to rewatch "Lifeboat" and "Abandon Ship!"

Both good movies......I somehow doubt we will see much in the way of voluntarily self-sacrifice in the real world as seen in those old movies.

--------------------------------

While I agree that defense spending HAS to drop.....one area of concern for me is that if the US economic situation winds up being worse-to-far-worse than anticipated I could imagine a situation where a "war reboot" MIGHT allow the US to maintain global dominance for another term.

While the US has worked hard to keep Pakistan and India from major conflict in the past decade I wonder if a view could be taken that changing tack and now stoking the fire of war between the two...or just stepping out of the way to allow them to nuke each other and suck China in into the fray is a potential win/win for the US?

Would a inter-regional conflict involving Pakistan/India/China, possibly including the use of a number of nuclear weapons in the region, provide the US the opportunity to reduce the economic and future military threat or competition posed by China and India respectively?

US conventional and nuclear dominance over the planet is at it's zenith....trillions of dollars and decades invested in achieving an unparalleled in history military lead over the rest of the planet.

Surely considerations must being given by some to ensure that this massive investment in global military dominance doesn't slowly attrit and rot away over the coming decade(s).

I think "use it or lose it" becomes an increasing attractive(and horrifically destructive) option the deeper the US falls in the doo doo.

It could reboot the global financial system with the US in control.

It could see the supply/demand equation of Peak Oil pushed out another 1-2 decades.

It could reindustrialize the US and reduce very high unemployment.

It could allow the US to reboot anything/everything domestically.

It could knock China and India back several generations economically and militarily and force them to continue to focus inwards.

It could(based on a reasonably short but VERY sharp conflict) see a reduction in both population and quality of life in the developing world and reduced energy competition.

It could maintain US global economic and military dominance for the foreseeable future.

How little would it take?

Possibly just one more Indian Parliament, Mumbai Train Bombing, Mumbai Massacre backed by the Pakistani ISI using Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed as their conduit.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/fb...eadley/583434/

How little effort would it take to initiate conflict momentum between Pakistan and India ultimately absorbing China?

It could be a very, very,very expensive path in human terms globally...but ultimately a very easy one for US politicians faced with the prospect of having to try and throw politically militant old folks under the bus.

Is there a single elected politician in the US who WOULDN'T gladly throw 2.5 billion brown and yellow people under the bus to avoid telling a single retirement home full of senior citizens that their bennies are being cut?

Ultimately, I'm less concerned about future defense spending, and more concerned about alluring desire to full utilise current unsustainable military dominance before it is ultimately lost....coming at the expense of billions of nameless brown and yellow people to keep the American Dream Machine rocking for another generation.

While I find this outcome still unlikely, the "steeper and deeper" things get in the US, the more attractive the option to encourage India/China to cut each other literally in half.

Is 10-15 million barrels of oil a day consumed by 2.5 billion non-voting Chindians cut in half more politically palatable in the US than 40-50 million voting senior citizens with benefits cut in half?

Not pleasant........but not impossible to imagine either.

Just my 0.02c

[flintlock]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Stop scaring me dude.

[flintlock]

Re: Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

I wonder what the movie "a day without a Mexican" would look like were it made today. Would it depict near-full employment, honest-work jobs available for the asking, with wages for those lower level jobs raised significantly, to boot?

Hmm, Full employment and a more equitable wage structure in the economy. Oh the horror, the horror.

Globalism. Outside of a classroom, it turns out that it ain't all it's cracked up to be for those living in developed nations (unless you are an economist, a banker, an attorney, a doctor, a sales manager, anyone who owns capital and needs cheap labor to compete, or anyone else in a highly language dependent field who remains mostly immune to its effects on your career)

Then again, christmas tree lights, children's toys, Nike's, clothing, and big screen TV's would cost more. And we all know what a HUGE part of the budget those can be! Much better to be unemployed or underemployed and enjoying those cheap goods.

"I like the way you think. I'm going to be watching you".

-Professor Turguson (Sam Kinison) in "Back to School"