News week, Aug 3,2009 (newweek.com) asserts the recession is over.
we think not, here aqt Democratic Financial World. One must keep in mind History:during the Great Depression of the 1930's there were five stock market rallies, and none of them lasted. In fact in James Livingstone argeas in "the true Causes of the Great Depression" Challenge (www.challenge.com) in the May-June issue- the tue cause was falling wages and Failing banks--the exact same course we are on now.
Livingstone argues t6he underlying cause "was a fundametal shift away from wages and consuption to corporate profits of a tidal wave of surplus captial that could not be profitably invested in goods production, aand in fact was not invested in goods peroduction.
"In classical,neo classical aamd supp-ly side theory this shift should have prouced more jobs and invewstemt vbut did not.
Livingston cites key trends:
--in 1929 90% of tax payers had less disposable income in 1929,than in 1922;
--meanwhile corporate profits rose 62%, and dividends doulble
--the top 1% of taxpayewrs increased their disposalble income by 63% between 1922 and 1929
In a word the very mirror image of the end of the Bush years. but Livingston goes on to say that by "1999 income shares from wages shifted awway from wages toward profits, resutled in new securies
Note: This is written by Verity Macgruder and English Columnist whose position requires anonimity
New from America includes tid bits of a CIA contract person torturing Detaness with Fire Ands , according to Yahoo and Glen Trush blogs.. And on the British side there are reports in the London Ecomomist that former Vice-president Dick Cheney is not one bit sorry aboput torture.
Here we can only sake our heads:Gordon Brown has been forced to allow public hearings on the road to the War in Iraq--wich will do nothing to enhance former Prime Minister Toy Blairs reputation.
Mr Blair, our American readers might not know sailed under false co,lors for years-travel;ing as an Anglican high church Defender iof the faith by day,and secret confessional Catholic by night.
This,dear Americansis a residue of anti-Catholism that has lasted 500 years and is still not dune. As late as World War 2 Catholics were formally barred from high offices because Catholics took marcfhing orders from the Vatican that the loyatly to Crown and State.
Mr Blairs Dual useism sort of corvers all the bases of religious experience. Unkind folk will say this is only an extension of Mr Blair's politics: he endevoured to be all things to all people.
Still as a assertive woman I can say Mr Blair was not Bill Clinton nosying about Monica Lewinsky of the world. Mr Blair-puppy doy that he was with his eargerness to please-was emminently sensible man who kept his feet fuly planted in the public spere. And that is why this inquiry is undertaken.
Mr Obama thought has sought to sweep Mr Push under the rug. He has vigourously resisted a "tructh comission" and hearings on torture. He remebers with good reason, the Coldby-Richard Bisell era of the 70's and the dark revelations of the FBI after Watergate, and does not want to repeat the withering of crediblity.
Mr Obama took an oath of office "to take care that the laws are faitfully executed." And actually ended up taking the oath twibecuse be botched the first one. He has commented that this is a goverment of laws not men. This means that all stand equal under the law.
Mr Obama acted with out fear or favor in prosecuting the Governor's of New York and Illinois for therir indiscretions. Yet he offers a double standard of justice,a free pass to Repuclicans dfor matters of misconduct happening of their watch--exergarious behaviour of the worst sort.
One of the more flatoutious ideas has been that the Organization of American States to admit Cuba to membership provided that Cuba adhere to the priciples of human rights. Cuba, after consulting Castro,declined the offer.
Why is this fatuitous? Recall the "dirty war" in Mexico where thousands of leftists disappeared. Recall the missing in Argentina...
Recall Chile iand the assination of Salvador Allende and the end to legally elected democratic government. Recall the invasions of Grendada and elsewhere..
Recall the Patriot Act of the USA that allows "terrists" to to held indefinitely without trial, without right of appeal and unable to confront witnesses becuse they are "secret". The US Congress has not reformed or done away with this--only the Supreme Court has Acted.
This is a Goverment that has no problem indicting Eliot Spritzer or Rod Blagadoch, but wimpes out at prosecuting waterbordists on the grounds that "we want to put the past behind us". Surely that meens one standard for Democrats, and another for Republicans. And this is a goverment who at the end of World War 2 executed people for waterboarding as a war crime.
For more see "Flickering Lights" London Ecomonist June 6,2009. Economist.com
Kofi ana once defined "terrorism" as "being aything that move goverments or non govermental units towards a goal by violent Means". And the Arab world declined to endose this view for solidarity reasons with Palestinians, and that it would prevent wars of liberation.
Iran adopted this refusal. So now it is ironic that Iran is now calling protesters terrorists because they want to have an honest count at least it the recent elections.
Obama has refused to be drwn in to this . And it is unlikely that talks will proceed any time soon on weaponization issues, which is just as well beause Netaqnyahu has embarked on a "linkage" beteeen progress in Iran and the West Bank settlements.
But this linkage can turn out badly for Isreal if the Iranians choose to play the card right back. Why,they can ask, should Isreal have nuclear weapons but not Iran? If the oblject is a nuclear free Middle East is a goal, why not make Isreal declare and then give up is nuclear weapons?
This is not the debate Obama wants to have. More over as the recent article on "avoiding a Nuclear Crowd" in Policy Review (no 155 June-july 2009) Henry Sokoliki raises the issue of the Fissille material Cutoff Treaty, which would ban fissile materials that could be made into weapons raises the definite ojection that "Obvisly Eypt, Pakistan and others will be loathto give up their rights until Isreal gives up its nuclear weapons and India no longer poses a significant nuclear threat"
And what further complicates things is the US India treaty which gives India the right to weaponize matrial from eith nuclear power plants. According to testimony before the House Committee on Internation Relations bucommittee on Terrorism and Non Prolieration, India already has enough fissile material to make over 2,000 crude weapons. It will be hard to argue that the US should be obeyed in face of this, since India has previously threated Pakistan with nuclear weapons where Iran has not-at least at this point.
Now there are some critics who arue that APresident Ahmajiden threaten Isreal. But, read the speech itself. Now where was Isreal mentioned. The closest statement was "the regeme that controls Jerulsam". It was the Iraian Press office statement that actually mentioned Isreal.
Obama faces an even tougher task now in proposing a new round of sactions because the very people the sanctions will hurt will be the emerging middle class who voted for more open ss and freedom. By provoking an artifial recession, hard won middle class gains will be lost, and hardliners will further be in control.
Is Obama up to the task? He has only a few days left to decide. Two months of delay will be too late, and only allow more reprecessing with wout consquences. Time is running out and Isreal will not wait.
We here at Democratic Financial World have never believed Obama's Change You Can Believe in slogan, though we believe in the man. Obama has thrived with ciourage and grace confronting challenges that would disinhearten lesser folk.
But his slogan is simply too much...
Now that both Chysler and Eneral Motors are in bankrucy we can say niether has learned any lessons, judging from impatial newsmedia sources. Consider the Business Week June 8 2009 report that Cadillac and Chevorelt will get $1.3 billion in marketing money"Double the existing budget and pretty close to what Toyota spends on Lexus"....
Where we ask is the cash for hybrid vehicles? Where is the stepped up paced for the electric cars? Where are the new fuel effecient vhehicles?
Chevy and Cadillac don't have either. But let's move on with Biz Week's breathless report:"With lower costs GM will have more money to spend on Buick and GMC which were long starved of new vehicles",writes Biz Week. Yet almost every analist has pointed out GM needs fewer, not more car brands.. GM's new production boss Tom G Stephens doesn't get it.
We can read between the lines: government funding for proven patterns of failure. This is change we can't believe in.
We have said before the Deocratic party should not run ib on the "We Saved Cadillc" platform. That belongs to the other party-the party of gas guzzles.
While Chrysler offers hope of small cars from Fiat as a part of it's alliance, we can not be confident of a turnaround. European management --Volkswagon,Dailer and others ran Chryster into the ground where it is today. American were never impressed with German engineering, and Fiat offers more of the same.
Fiat is sports cars in the puclic mind in the US, but the biggest and richest market is family vehicles--which is why SUV's are still popular- but tarnished because of low gas milage.
If fact,if it were not for fuel economy they would still be wildly popular.
Detroit's problem is not design; it is efficiency.It makes too many cars with little regard to markets. We recall when Auto Nation did a computer analysis of what sold three years ago-including every bell and whislte-and noted Detroit lacked specific detail of exactly who their customer was..
How could Gm and Chrystler have so many outlets between them and not have such basic data? One cannot imagine Proctor and Gamble , Hp or Dell not knowing who their costomers were.
We wonder too about the post bailout debt load forcast by Business Week. Chrysler's barely moves from $22.7 Billion to 21 billion. Yet, Gm's moves from $69 Billion to 10-20 billion. The pupose of bankrutcy is to erase debt, and re-emerege- yet, Chysler's barely changes.
So we have to ask what kind of deal did the Obama Administration cut with Chrylser to allow a bare nick?
We also note the German governments money for GM Europe-specfifically for Opel. Yet this stuff isn't even included in the GM plan. Will GM-europe profits be bought back to GM-assuming there are profits.
We're sorry, but this is not change we can believe in--
--it makes no new efforts toward fuel effecient cars, or even makes them a priority..
--it still favors gas guzzelers over electric or hybrid vehicles, and lays out no roadmap for change...
-- it makes no claim of technological advancement No joint planning for electic waystation of reueling and no integration with highway planning or electrical grid restructiong for smoothing the change over.
The Democratic Party shioulod not mortgage it's futuree to a post brankrucy rescue operation unless there is a clear road map for change in the car industry from its addiction to oil.
Well President Obama latet move to fire GM's Rick Wagner is certainly taking charge. We would have to reach all the way back to Teddy Roosevet's battle with Standard Oil for a paralell of poulism.
But hole the cheers please. Both GM's and Chrsler's electric vehices and Hybrids are nowehere near production and won't be before 2011 at the latest. They are starved for cash flow because of competeing priorities, and essentially the same goverment the brougfht you Katrinia is still in charge, and that is because you can't turn things around overnight no matter how hard one tries.
Moreover, the electric grid isn't anywhere near buildt yet. So where will they be plugged in?
Assume Bankrucy occurs, there is no guartee all the money will not be squandered on paying lawyers exbortant fee.s. Welfare for the lawyers we say And what happens as these cars fall further behind on the production schedule. At the most what bankrupcy does in pay off investors who ok'd the Jurassic Park evironment--in other words, rewarding dinasourbrains.
President Obama need to set a road map. And like it or not, there is no better place to start than Geoge Bush's "addiction to Oil" speech.. Obama should say President Bush got something right-even though he did not do much else. At least he identified the problem in a very public way.
This would provide the bipartasianship for whatr is really needed-a Manahttan Project to delelop electric and hybrid vehicleon a fast track basis.
Current thinking-keep the best sellers-junk the rest is clearly not the wave of the future.
Do you think Barak Obama can run on a platform of "We saved Caddlice and Chevey?" One would be laughed out of the Democratic party. No-and this is important, not just sybolically either. The Republicans can have a fied day with "turing you back on the common man" by saving Caddy.
This strategy needs to ehance the future in making autos. If all we are doing is enabling people to reach small destinations one person to a car we are wasting stratic resouces.
We already hace hybrid buses. And if we can do hybrid busses cars should not be hard technically-especially SUV, which are best sellers anyway. Moreover, wouldn't it be easier to lift the 70,000 vehicle limit on hybrid vehicles imposed i previous tax bill , which only served to limit forien makes who sold thier 70000 quota in two moths when domestic makers have yet to produce one.
A real strategy would focus on what is produced that drives down gas prices, not who produces the car. The idea is to reauce the addiction, not provide jobs to compainies that can't race fopr the dollars..
Time will tell wether Obama will drw a line in the sand and focus on cars of the future, or put the Democats on the road to "Well we saved Caddilace."
The American Independent party founders-a group McCain VP candidate has been with over the years-has professed his 'hatred for the American government" and cursed the American flage as our 'damn flag' during a 1991 interview as part of an oaral histor project in the Rassmussen library in Fairbanks Alaska.
This is the gruop that has had as its platform Alaska suceeding from the union.
This comes to us coutesy of CBS news www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/pdfs/ in a oct 6 story which we invite you to read and reder thoughts
Yes,1991 you say. But as infomercials say-there's more.
The Manchester Guardian a united kingdom newspaper has on its website a vidoe of Gov Palinspeaking to the American indepedent Party as Governor of Alaska during the closing ceremonies of the American Independt conventiopn. If she is a Republican,why is she speaking to a grup she supposedly left?
AS the CBS story quotes the founder sayng "the fires of hell are glaciers compared to my hatred of the Ameican government"
Compare the AIP slogan "Alaska First,Alaska Always" with the mcCain -Palin slogan "Country First'
The CBS story also quoted a current leader (remember Todd palin, Sarah's husband was secretary of the AIP for awhile) as being a "states rights party".
This calls to mind the Strom Thurmonds of old,segregationists, never never giving up, and still a hundred years later wanting tio fly the Confederate flag above the capitol in South Carolina,
It must be asked; is Sarah Palin a loyal American when she joined a party seeking diunity of our nation? She is a woman we are told who goes into things eyes wide open--so if so she must have known the founder's anti-government philosophy from the first. And the video shows she has not broken her ties with the sucessioist movement, but continues them to this very day
The July 2 Wall Street Journal should be insstructive reading: Barack rushing to appease the right on extending faith based intitatives!
Since that time there's been the re-enging on the wiretap bill. This goes well with the already broken promise on the Patriot Act. Hillary Clinton kept her word. Why can't this blog asks Brack keep his.?
One little criticism and he trembles like a leaf. Now we are beginning to hear his pullout plan will stretch beyond 18 months--and sstill leave 80,000 men in Iraq. This could be justified if we were practicing the Pottery Barn theory of takeovers-you broke it you own it. To date we haven't heard this paarticular line of reasoning--however, as they say in infomercials-wait there's more!
We have yet to see an exit plan for Afganistan, let alon Pakistan. Something Baracky told us he wanted in the You tube debate. Well,yes, that was then, and this is now.
There's change all right. But if you can't beleve the Patriot Act, and FISA-what can you belieeve in?
