Monday, April 20, 2009
Is American "science" taking the road to fascism along with the "tea baggers?"
In this article below a group of scientists and professors claim that "over population" is the number one environmental problem we are facing. This smacks of a fascist mentality.
Notice: climate change comes in second and a failed capitalist system isn’t even questioned; and, there isn’t a single mention about the need for peace and to re-order priorities away from war and military spending.
This in spite of the fact that militarism and production for war has consumed almost thirty percent of all the iron ore mined on the Iron Ranges of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan in the last one-hundred and thirty-five years and there is no figure available that I can find documenting how much industrial production has been wasted on militarism and war.
How is it that this kind of group of scientists would not even consider militarism and wars after the Black Forest of Europe and huge, huge tracts of forested land in the Soviet countries and all over the rest of Europe have been destroyed in two major wars? Not to mention the number of trees that have been required to rebuild from wars and the forestry requirements to fight wars.
That these scientists can get away with this kind of “study” in the name of science is atrocious… it demonstrates the weaknesses of the anti-war, anti-imperialist movements in this country and the poor job environmentalists have done in demonstrating the impact of militarism and war on our ecosystems.
Nor does this reflect the tremendous waste under capitalism.
Instead, too many people are the primary problem; and, it has been the capitalist system of production which has encouraged an out of control population… if everyone was assured a decent job with adequate pay with a real education where real life problems from war to socialism to population could be freely discussed free from religious reaction population would not even be a question.
But note: this article claims 100 million people on earth would be good; but 10 million would be better.
What kind of “science” is this?
We have to ask: Where are the professors and educational community who should be on top of exposing a “study” like this with such a conclusion?
Rather than looking at population as it is and what needs to be done to create a better world, we get this.
Tax-payer funds are being used for something as racist and anti-working class as this. This is what passes for “science” in the United States.
Where are the progressive voices of the university community? Out cheering Barack Obama on?
Note where protection of our freshwater aquifers is--- right at the bottom.
Not a single mention that the capitalist mode of production and the corporate drive for profits has largely driven the population explosion.
And, we need to ask: Where is the challenge to this from the student movements?
Where is the left-wing media to take this kind of report on?
One can only imagine what scientists like Albert Einstein would have to say about this kind of study coming out of an American University.
Alan L. Maki
From:
Science News
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2009) — Overpopulation is the world’s top environmental issue, followed closely by climate change and the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels, according to a survey of the faculty at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF).
Just in time for Earth Day (April 22) the faculty at the college, at which environmental issues are the sole focus, was asked to help prioritize the planet’s most pressing environmental problems.
Overpopulation came out on top, with several professors pointing out its ties to other problems that rank high on the list.
“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.” (Current estimates put the planet’s population at more than six billion.)
Dr. Allan P. Drew, a forest ecologist, put it this way: “Overpopulation means that we are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we should, just because more people are doing it and this is related to overconsumption by people in general, especially in the ‘developed’ world.”
“But, whether developed or developing,” said Dr. Susan Senecah, who teaches the history of the American environmental movement, “everyone is encouraged to ‘want’ and perceive that they ‘need’ to consume beyond the planet’s ability to provide.”
The ESF faculty pointed to climate change as the second most-pressing issue, with the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels coming in third.
“Experimenting with the earth’s climate and chemistry has great risks,” said Dr. Thomas E. Amidon, who invented a process for removing energy-rich sugars from wood and fermenting those sugars into ethanol. “This is a driver in climate change and loss of biodiversity and is a fundamental problem underlying our need to strive for sustainability.”
Rounding out the top 10 issues on the ESF list are overconsumption, the need for more sustainable practices worldwide, the growing need for energy conservation, the need for humans to see themselves as part of the global ecosystem, overall carbon dioxide emissions, the need to develop ways to produce consumer products from renewable resources, and dwindling fresh water resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from materials provided by SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, via Newswise.
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my blog:
Thoughts From Podunk
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
Notice: climate change comes in second and a failed capitalist system isn’t even questioned; and, there isn’t a single mention about the need for peace and to re-order priorities away from war and military spending.
This in spite of the fact that militarism and production for war has consumed almost thirty percent of all the iron ore mined on the Iron Ranges of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan in the last one-hundred and thirty-five years and there is no figure available that I can find documenting how much industrial production has been wasted on militarism and war.
How is it that this kind of group of scientists would not even consider militarism and wars after the Black Forest of Europe and huge, huge tracts of forested land in the Soviet countries and all over the rest of Europe have been destroyed in two major wars? Not to mention the number of trees that have been required to rebuild from wars and the forestry requirements to fight wars.
That these scientists can get away with this kind of “study” in the name of science is atrocious… it demonstrates the weaknesses of the anti-war, anti-imperialist movements in this country and the poor job environmentalists have done in demonstrating the impact of militarism and war on our ecosystems.
Nor does this reflect the tremendous waste under capitalism.
Instead, too many people are the primary problem; and, it has been the capitalist system of production which has encouraged an out of control population… if everyone was assured a decent job with adequate pay with a real education where real life problems from war to socialism to population could be freely discussed free from religious reaction population would not even be a question.
But note: this article claims 100 million people on earth would be good; but 10 million would be better.
What kind of “science” is this?
We have to ask: Where are the professors and educational community who should be on top of exposing a “study” like this with such a conclusion?
Rather than looking at population as it is and what needs to be done to create a better world, we get this.
Tax-payer funds are being used for something as racist and anti-working class as this. This is what passes for “science” in the United States.
Where are the progressive voices of the university community? Out cheering Barack Obama on?
Note where protection of our freshwater aquifers is--- right at the bottom.
Not a single mention that the capitalist mode of production and the corporate drive for profits has largely driven the population explosion.
And, we need to ask: Where is the challenge to this from the student movements?
Where is the left-wing media to take this kind of report on?
One can only imagine what scientists like Albert Einstein would have to say about this kind of study coming out of an American University.
Alan L. Maki
From:
Science News
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2009) — Overpopulation is the world’s top environmental issue, followed closely by climate change and the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels, according to a survey of the faculty at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF).
Just in time for Earth Day (April 22) the faculty at the college, at which environmental issues are the sole focus, was asked to help prioritize the planet’s most pressing environmental problems.
Overpopulation came out on top, with several professors pointing out its ties to other problems that rank high on the list.
“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.” (Current estimates put the planet’s population at more than six billion.)
Dr. Allan P. Drew, a forest ecologist, put it this way: “Overpopulation means that we are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we should, just because more people are doing it and this is related to overconsumption by people in general, especially in the ‘developed’ world.”
“But, whether developed or developing,” said Dr. Susan Senecah, who teaches the history of the American environmental movement, “everyone is encouraged to ‘want’ and perceive that they ‘need’ to consume beyond the planet’s ability to provide.”
The ESF faculty pointed to climate change as the second most-pressing issue, with the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels coming in third.
“Experimenting with the earth’s climate and chemistry has great risks,” said Dr. Thomas E. Amidon, who invented a process for removing energy-rich sugars from wood and fermenting those sugars into ethanol. “This is a driver in climate change and loss of biodiversity and is a fundamental problem underlying our need to strive for sustainability.”
Rounding out the top 10 issues on the ESF list are overconsumption, the need for more sustainable practices worldwide, the growing need for energy conservation, the need for humans to see themselves as part of the global ecosystem, overall carbon dioxide emissions, the need to develop ways to produce consumer products from renewable resources, and dwindling fresh water resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from materials provided by SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, via Newswise.
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my blog:
Thoughts From Podunk
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 16, 2009
An open letter to "Tea Party" activists
What I see in your Tea Party "movement" is:
1. racism
2. vicious anti-communism
3. warmongers
4. people sucked in by Wall Street
5. a gross distortion of "patriotism."
I would encourage all of you to read "Citizen Tom Paine" by Howard Fast and his other historical novels on the American Revolution to get some kind of basic grounding and understanding as to what constitutes fighting for freedom, justice and liberty.
You really have a very shallow understanding of the issues.
For instance---
Why no mention of this "little" fact:
Our government is wasting trillions of dollars maintaining over 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil dotting the globe in countries where we have no business when, instead, we should be establishing 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States providing free health care for everyone.
It is easy for you all to say things like you do using assumed names and monikers... I am wondering if you would dare to say such pathetically stupid, harmful and hurtful things if you had to sign your real names and provide contact information?
I would challenge any of you to debate these issues: anytime, anyplace anywhere.
Any takers?
Bak, bak, bak, bak, baaakkk, bak, bak, bak, baaaaakkkkkkkk.
Just a bunch of chicken shit patriots.
Give me a call if you can converse intelligently.
Alan L. Maki
218-386-2432
Please note: for the fourth time I placed this comment (above) on the official Minnesota Tea Party blog and each time I received this message:
And my comment has never been posted. So much for these Wall Street manipulated puppets believing in democracy.
1. racism
2. vicious anti-communism
3. warmongers
4. people sucked in by Wall Street
5. a gross distortion of "patriotism."
I would encourage all of you to read "Citizen Tom Paine" by Howard Fast and his other historical novels on the American Revolution to get some kind of basic grounding and understanding as to what constitutes fighting for freedom, justice and liberty.
You really have a very shallow understanding of the issues.
For instance---
Why no mention of this "little" fact:
Our government is wasting trillions of dollars maintaining over 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil dotting the globe in countries where we have no business when, instead, we should be establishing 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States providing free health care for everyone.
It is easy for you all to say things like you do using assumed names and monikers... I am wondering if you would dare to say such pathetically stupid, harmful and hurtful things if you had to sign your real names and provide contact information?
I would challenge any of you to debate these issues: anytime, anyplace anywhere.
Any takers?
Bak, bak, bak, bak, baaakkk, bak, bak, bak, baaaaakkkkkkkk.
Just a bunch of chicken shit patriots.
Give me a call if you can converse intelligently.
Alan L. Maki
218-386-2432
Please note: for the fourth time I placed this comment (above) on the official Minnesota Tea Party blog and each time I received this message:
Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
And my comment has never been posted. So much for these Wall Street manipulated puppets believing in democracy.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Barack Obama sees "glimmers of hope"
Today, Barack Obama sees, "glimmers of hope."
Does anyone other than Obama see these "glimmers of hope?"
But, where's the change?
Barack Obama says the housing market is key to economic recovery.
Others say different.
I don't know what they are growing in that White House garden, but Obama must be puffing on something other than ordinary tobacco because he also said today that "home losses" were a big part of the "hardships" Americans are being forced to endure while the media is telling us one out of every nine homes in this country is not occupied and he is doing nothing to stop the foreclosures and evictions when a moratorium for the duration of this depression would be so easy--- especially if he is seeing "glimmers of hope."
These two articles tend to tell us Barack Obama is wrong and hallucinating when he says he sees, "glimmers of hope" and that "the housing market is key to economic recovery."
We really do need to take some time to study this situation because if the President of the United States and his economic advisers don't know what is required for "economic recovery" any more than his military advisers understand what constitutes peace we are in some real deep doo-doo.
Quite frankly, I think we have some way over-paid economists being led around by a President who hides behind the skirt of Rosy Scenario and this definitely does not bode well for us working people.
If the auto and steel industries don't work, the housing problem sure can't be fixed.
What is interesting is that China has become the world's largest steel AND auto producer.
Anyone care to figure out how all of this fits together in a world faced with a global capitalist economic melt-down?
Check out these articles; one from Canada and China, the other from France:
Global steel industry awaits auto turnaround
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090412/bs_wl_afp/commoditiesmetalssteelsector
PARIS (AFP) – Steel is on edge and the global industry is cutting back hard, hanging on for either a budget blast from China, new credit for vast Middle Eastern building schemes or resurrection of the US auto industry.
Demand has dwindled and steelmakers, notably the giant of them all, ArcelorMittal, are damping down surplus furnace capacity while waiting for credit to flow, construction cranes to turn and factories to roll.
A decision by ArcelorMittal last week to pursue temporary production cutbacks, slashing European output by more than half from the end of April according to a union source, dramatises the extraordinary ride and role of steel in the last few years.
In just months the global industry has gone from a boom driven largely by China, emerging markets and a property extravaganza in the Middle East to a narrow line between excess capacity and the costs of waiting for recovery.
"Over the past six months, demand for steel has dropped dramatically and, as a result, producers have been cutting production," analysts at Barclays Capital said in a study last week.
In another report, Morgan Stanley predicted "the current demand shock to lead to excess steel capacity."
Consequently, the bank said, steel plants should operate at rates below 75 percent of capacity until 2012.
"The steel market is not very different from base metals as a whole, but steel has reacted more rapidly and dramatically since September," said commodities analyst Perrine Faye of London-based FastMarkets.
She said the future of the steel industry depended on three factors -- the impact of Chinese economic stimulus efforts, a pick-up in the Middle East construction sector and a revival of the once mighty US auto industry.
"Chinese imports and exports are at a standstill. Everyone is waiting for the Chinese stimulus package to see if it will revive demand."
The Chinese government last month announced a four-trillion-yuan (580-billion-dollar) package of measures that it said could contribute 1.5 to 1.9 percent to the country's economic growth.
Industry experts have meanwhile spoken optimistically of China's prospects.
Thomas Albanese, chief executive at steel maker Rio Tinto, said earlier this year that the company foresaw "a short, sharp slowdown in China, with demand rebounding over the course of 2009, as the fundamentals of Chinese economic growth remain sound."
Analysts have said steel inventories are falling in China in anticipation of projects expected to emerge from the country's huge stimulus package.
"It is encouraging that the inventory of steel products, especially long products, which are mostly used in construction projects, have started to fall (since the end of March), likely suggesting that end-demand is gathering momentum," Frank Gong, a Hong Kong-based economist for JPMorgan, wrote in a research note.
On-the-ground evidence suggested that the Chinese industry had been re-stocking in the first two months of the year, followed by a pause in March before major infrastructure projects were expected to start in the second quarter, Gong wrote.
In the Middle East, according to Faye, the big problem is a shortage of credit, notably for real estate developers and builders.
Construction planners had "counted on a higher price for oil and on credit to finance their huge projects."
In addition, demand for such facilities, especially in the Gulf, has died.
"They were hoping that Americans and Europeans would buy apartments. But property prices have collapsed in the Middle East as well."
In the United Arab Emirates more than half the building projects, worth 582 billion dollars or 45 per cent of the total value of the construction sector, have been put on hold, a study by Dubai-based market research group Proleads found in February.
In Dubai, one of the states of the UAE, prices in the real estate sector have slumped by an average of 25 percent from their peak in September after rallying 79 percent in the 18 months to July 2008, according to Morgan Stanley.
Faye said the fate of the steel sector was in addition tied to that of the struggling US auto industry, once a thriving steel market but one in which two of its giant players, General Motors and Chrysler, are staring at bankruptcy.
The two companies are currently limping along thanks to billions of dollars in government aid.
"We are waiting to see if the auto sector in the US will get out of the crisis intact," she said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090411.wrcover11/BNStory/Business
China's runaway steel train
April 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM EDT
FENGRUN, CHINA and TORONTO — Yu Jianshui fidgets in his big leather chair
as he chain-smokes his way through an interview. Times are tough at the
Tangshan Fengrun Zhengda Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
With China suffering its sharpest economic slowdown in decades, Mr. Yu, the
firm's general manager, complains that he is getting fewer and fewer orders
for his main product, huge bars of raw steel known as billets. In his 23
years in steel, “this is the worst I've ever seen.”
Yet under the corrugated metal roofs of his steel mill, blast furnaces
still blast and two assembly lines still roll out 3,000 tonnes of steel a
day.
It is the same story elsewhere in Fengrun, a gritty steel town where the
red flag of the People's Republic flies from giant-like loading derricks.
After shutting briefly when steel prices dipped last fall, most of
Fengrun's more than 100 mills have come back to life to exploit a price
uptick this winter, churning out countless tonnes of pipe, girders, rolled
steel and heavy cable.
And that, Mr. Yu says, is the problem: Not that so many mills are going out
of business, but that so many are still going.
China simply makes too much steel. The government estimates that China's
annual production is about 100 million tonnes more than it should be, a
figure equal to the whole annual output of the industry in the United
States.
Worse, China has far too many steel companies, more than 700 at last count.
Add in iron companies and companies that roll or otherwise shape steel, and
the total comes to more than 7,000. Despite repeated government attempts to
force them to consolidate into fewer, bigger companies, most of them are
still small and inefficient.
By rights, many companies should have closed. Instead, they march on like
zombies, China's industrial undead.
That was not such a problem when China was growing at 10 per cent or more a
year and demand was soaring for products made in the “workshop of the
world.” No matter how much steel China made and how many companies were
making it, there was always a market somewhere.
Now it's a problem, and not just for China and its steel makers. In China
and around the world, demand for steel is plummeting. Producers are cutting
back: Japan's output fell 39 per cent and Germany's 31 per cent in February
from the same month last year.
But China's crude steel production in February actually grew 4.9 per cent,
even as steel exports hit a 52-month low, falling 62 per cent on a yearly
basis. Since last October, most steel makers have been losing money. Prices
for Chinese hot-rolled steel fell to about $400 (U.S.) a tonne in March,
less than half the peak of $980 a tonne hit last year. Even China's Iron
and Steel Association has cautioned that overproduction has risked flooding
the market with unwanted steel.
In its latest master plan for steel, drawn up this winter, Beijing says it
will force the industry to slim down and consolidate. But such edicts have
been issued many times before, and instead, production has continued to
proliferate. Few believe this time is likely to be different.
The impact of China's overproduction is being felt around the world. As
demand for steel products plunges, China's continued strong production is
hurting producers in other countries. Just this week, a group of American
makers of steel pipe used in oil drilling filed complaints with U.S. trade
officials alleging unfair competition from Chinese imports they say have
been dumped on the domestic market.
“That is the challenge of China,” says Michael Willemse, an analyst
with CIBC World Markets in Toronto. “They can be very disruptive to the
global market if their capacity-expansion plans are not consistent with
consumption needs of the industrial economy.”
MINERS STILL HAPPYChina's romance with steel goes back a long way. Chinese
in the Han Dynasty, 1,800 years ago, produced an early form of steel by
combining wrought iron and cast iron.
In the disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1958 to 1961, Mao Zedong made grain
and steel production the centrepiece of his plan to surpass the decadent
West. The Great Helmsman encouraged the people to build backyard steel
furnaces in every commune and neighbourhood. To meet wildly unrealistic
production goals, they melted down pots and pans and burned furniture for
fuel.
When Deng Xiaoping abandoned Maoist economics in 1978, China began building
its steel industry in earnest. As foreign investment poured in and the
economy took off, China ramped up production. In the present decade, it has
grown at an average of more than 20 per cent a year. It now exceeds the
combined production of Japan, the United States, Russia, India, South
Korea, Germany, Ukraine and Brazil.
China became the world's biggest consumer and producer of steel, accounting
for a third of the world's total output.
Like the auto industry in North America, steel in China came to be
considered an essential industry, too big to fail. It directly employs 3.58
million people. Millions more live off it in support roles. As of 2007, it
contributed 4 per cent of China's gross domestic product and 9 per cent of
industrial profits.
For a long time, everyone seemed to benefit. Chinese steel makers were
growing and making money. Foreign steel makers were selling lots of steel
to China, which was a net importer of steel until 2006. Iron ore producers
in resource-rich countries such as Canada made a fortune as the steel boom
pushed up prices for ore.
Indeed, the relatively stable demand from China has helped coking coal and
iron prices weather the global economic collapse better than most
commodities – and if Chinese steel makers remain at their current
production levels, that would not be unwelcome to the international iron
ore and coking coal producers.
At a time when financing for most mining firms has all but disappeared,
China has been a lone source of capital, playing sugar daddy abroad to
shore up the future of the domestic steel industry. Last week, Wuhan Iron
and Steel Group Corp., or WISCO, one of China's largest steel producers,
agreed to invest a total of $240-million to acquire a 20-per-cent stake in
Consolidated Thompson Iron Mines Ltd. and a 25-per-cent stake in the
company's Bloom Lake iron ore development project in Quebec.
But for China, the continuing steel push, once a sign of strength, has
become a sign of weakness.
The sector's prodigious growth made it a vivid symbol of China's rise. Now,
it tells the story of chronic overinvestment and overcapacity, manipulated
lending, political interference in markets and overreliance on heavy
industry – faults that are being exposed by the crisis across many of the
country's industries, and that could cost China dearly as the global
recession grinds on.
Steel is not the only industry plagued by too much capacity and too many
companies. China has 5,000 cement makers, 3,800 glass makers, 3,500 pulp
and paper producers, and no less than 24,000 chemical companies.
“It's a kind of a perpetual theme here,” says Jack Perkowski, now a
merchant banker in Beijing who came to China from the United States almost
20 years ago to start a car parts company – and was startled to find
there were already 150 companies making piston rings.
“If you look at any product, there are usually only half a dozen or so
companies making it in most countries. In China, there are hundreds or
thousands making that same product.”
The reasons behind China's capacity issue say a lot about how China works
– or doesn't – and points to a slew of other problems.
Outsiders tend to think of China as a centralized state with an
all-powerful government that can order industries around at will. In fact,
real power often lies with provincial and local officials, the powerful
barons of the Chinese political system.
Like Canadian premiers, they fight among themselves to attract industry.
And steel is a particular favourite, a “pillar industry” that produces
a crucial raw material for many other prestige industries, like automobiles
and appliances. In China, Mr. Perkowski says, “every town and every
village has to have a steel mill.”
The result is a highly dispersed, even balkanized industry, with production
spread around a half-dozen major steel-producing provinces and a dozen or
more smaller rivals. Those provinces compete constantly to outdo each other
at steel production.
The perennial winner is Hebei province, a traditional industrial powerhouse
in northeastern China, surrounding Beijing and the port of Tianjin.
According to the industry watcher mysteel.net, Hebei – where Mr. Yu's
Fengrun mill is located – won the output “championship” for the
seventh successive year in 2008, producing more than 100 million tonnes.
A value-added tax introduced in 1996 gives the provincial barons even more
incentive to lure steel companies and win bragging rights. A quarter of the
revenue from the VAT goes to local governments.
Balkanization makes for massive inefficiency. In a country like China that
lacks high-grade iron ore, the ideal would be to produce steel in big,
modern plants near coastal ports, making it cheaper to bring in ore and
coking coal, and easier to export production. Instead Chinese mills often
have to bring in their ore over hundreds of kilometres of rail track,
pushing up their costs.
Pushing up pollution, too. A report last month from the Alliance for
American Manufacturing claimed that China's steel industry, with its
massive consumption of coal and electricity, produced half of the carbon
dioxide from world steel production, making it a huge contributor to the
greenhouse gases said to cause global warning. It also claimed that
governments help the industry with more than $15-billion a year in energy
subsidies, adding to pollution and overproduction.
China's government-directed banking system plays a part in runaway steel
output, too. In China, the big banks are run by the state. Their local
branches are often closely tied to local officials.
Eager to reap the taxes they get from steel companies, those officials
arrange with banks to provide financing for new mills. In China, where
labour and land is cheap, mills can be built in a fraction of the time it
takes in the West for a fraction of the cost.
If steel prices are rising, they quickly generate handsome profits. But
that adds to China's capacity and, in time, overcapacity. That, in turn,
puts downward pressure on prices. In a normally functioning market, Mr.
Perkowski says, that would lead to an industry shakeout. Weaker, smaller
mills would close. Production would fall to meet demand.
Not in China. With “everyone incentivized to keep producing,” he writes
in his 2008 book Managing the Dragon, “this capacity never closes.
Instead, the plant churns out product at ever-diminishing prices. As long
as it can sell at a price equal to the variable costs of production, it
keeps producing.” Even if it can't cover those costs, friendly banks may
step in to cover its losses.
“This is a topsy-turvy, helter-skelter model of economic growth where
each province has its own plans and the central government just sits on top
and screams,” says Hans Mueller, an independent consultant based in
Tennessee who follows China's steel industry.
The screaming does not seem to do much good. Beijing's latest master plan
would hold crude steel output to its current level of about 500 million
tonnes. It would move more steel-making capacity to the coastal regions.
And it would raise the minimum size of blast furnaces to 400 cubic metres,
up from 300 at present, with the intention of forcing smaller,
less-efficient mills to close.
The aim is to make its industry more like other countries', with a few big
dominant players. China's top three companies account for only about a
fifth of the country's total production, compared with well over half for
the top three in the United States, Russia or South Korea. South Korea, in
fact, gets 87 per cent of its production from just two giant mills.
To bang heads together, China's cabinet set a goal last month of raising
the share of output from its top five steel companies to 45 per cent of the
total from 28 per cent at present.
Canada's Teck Cominco Ltd., a major producer of coking coal used to make
steel, is betting on the consolidation of the Chinese steel industry.
Although it doesn't sell coal to China now, it hopes to in the future once
more Chinese production moves to the coast, creating demand for seaborne
coal.
Selling to China's coastal regions was a key driver behind the company's
$14-billion (Canadian) takeover last year of Fording Canadian Coal Trust
– a deal that has left Teck straining under more than $9-billion (U.S.)
in debt. “It's one of the reasons that we believe in the coal assets,”
said Teck spokesman Greg Waller. “There is going to be a fundamental
change in the valuation of metallurgical coal in the future.”
If history is any guide, it could take a long time for Teck's coal to get
to China's coast. The Chinese “have been talking about this as a matter
of national state policy since 2001 and the number of steel firms went up
and up and up,” says Daniel Rosen, principal of Rhodium Group, a New York
consultancy. “The reality went in a totally different direction.”
In fact, Beijing's massive four-trillion-yuan economic stimulus program
threatens to worsen steel's obesity issue. Much of the money will be used
for steel-gobbling projects like railway expansion. To further cushion the
industry from the global recession, Beijing is raising a rebate on steel
exports.
Yet despite the likelihood of continued Chinese steel overproduction, the
country's growth could very well serve as the cornerstone for a global
economic recovery.
Na Liu, China strategist at Scotia Capital, says China's iron and copper
imports hit record highs in February, and net imports of aluminum and zinc
are at their highest in several years. China's recent willingness to pay
$140 a tonne for coking coal helped support a 2009 benchmark coal contract
of $129 a tonne that was much higher than many expected.
As for steel, low prices coupled with China's relatively high cost of
production may have already tipped the trade balance in favour of imports.
Russian steel producers “have been selling into the Chinese market at
very competitive prices, and China might actually have become a net
importer of steel in March,” Mr. Liu says.
While China's labour and regulatory costs give it a major advantage over
other steel-producing nations, the bulk of those benefits will eventually
disappear.
“Gradually, Chinese steel mills are going to lose their cost advantages,
as environmental protection and other regulatory costs begin to go
higher,” Mr. Liu says.
Back in Fengrun, Mr. Yu knows his industry may need to change.
“When I was a kid, the country's power was measured by how much steel it
produced,” he says.
Now, he complains that the industry has too much capacity and too many
players. “They can't all survive,” he says. “Some of these companies
have to die off.”
Does anyone other than Obama see these "glimmers of hope?"
But, where's the change?
Barack Obama says the housing market is key to economic recovery.
Others say different.
I don't know what they are growing in that White House garden, but Obama must be puffing on something other than ordinary tobacco because he also said today that "home losses" were a big part of the "hardships" Americans are being forced to endure while the media is telling us one out of every nine homes in this country is not occupied and he is doing nothing to stop the foreclosures and evictions when a moratorium for the duration of this depression would be so easy--- especially if he is seeing "glimmers of hope."
These two articles tend to tell us Barack Obama is wrong and hallucinating when he says he sees, "glimmers of hope" and that "the housing market is key to economic recovery."
We really do need to take some time to study this situation because if the President of the United States and his economic advisers don't know what is required for "economic recovery" any more than his military advisers understand what constitutes peace we are in some real deep doo-doo.
Quite frankly, I think we have some way over-paid economists being led around by a President who hides behind the skirt of Rosy Scenario and this definitely does not bode well for us working people.
If the auto and steel industries don't work, the housing problem sure can't be fixed.
What is interesting is that China has become the world's largest steel AND auto producer.
Anyone care to figure out how all of this fits together in a world faced with a global capitalist economic melt-down?
Check out these articles; one from Canada and China, the other from France:
Global steel industry awaits auto turnaround
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090412/bs_wl_afp/commoditiesmetalssteelsector
PARIS (AFP) – Steel is on edge and the global industry is cutting back hard, hanging on for either a budget blast from China, new credit for vast Middle Eastern building schemes or resurrection of the US auto industry.
Demand has dwindled and steelmakers, notably the giant of them all, ArcelorMittal, are damping down surplus furnace capacity while waiting for credit to flow, construction cranes to turn and factories to roll.
A decision by ArcelorMittal last week to pursue temporary production cutbacks, slashing European output by more than half from the end of April according to a union source, dramatises the extraordinary ride and role of steel in the last few years.
In just months the global industry has gone from a boom driven largely by China, emerging markets and a property extravaganza in the Middle East to a narrow line between excess capacity and the costs of waiting for recovery.
"Over the past six months, demand for steel has dropped dramatically and, as a result, producers have been cutting production," analysts at Barclays Capital said in a study last week.
In another report, Morgan Stanley predicted "the current demand shock to lead to excess steel capacity."
Consequently, the bank said, steel plants should operate at rates below 75 percent of capacity until 2012.
"The steel market is not very different from base metals as a whole, but steel has reacted more rapidly and dramatically since September," said commodities analyst Perrine Faye of London-based FastMarkets.
She said the future of the steel industry depended on three factors -- the impact of Chinese economic stimulus efforts, a pick-up in the Middle East construction sector and a revival of the once mighty US auto industry.
"Chinese imports and exports are at a standstill. Everyone is waiting for the Chinese stimulus package to see if it will revive demand."
The Chinese government last month announced a four-trillion-yuan (580-billion-dollar) package of measures that it said could contribute 1.5 to 1.9 percent to the country's economic growth.
Industry experts have meanwhile spoken optimistically of China's prospects.
Thomas Albanese, chief executive at steel maker Rio Tinto, said earlier this year that the company foresaw "a short, sharp slowdown in China, with demand rebounding over the course of 2009, as the fundamentals of Chinese economic growth remain sound."
Analysts have said steel inventories are falling in China in anticipation of projects expected to emerge from the country's huge stimulus package.
"It is encouraging that the inventory of steel products, especially long products, which are mostly used in construction projects, have started to fall (since the end of March), likely suggesting that end-demand is gathering momentum," Frank Gong, a Hong Kong-based economist for JPMorgan, wrote in a research note.
On-the-ground evidence suggested that the Chinese industry had been re-stocking in the first two months of the year, followed by a pause in March before major infrastructure projects were expected to start in the second quarter, Gong wrote.
In the Middle East, according to Faye, the big problem is a shortage of credit, notably for real estate developers and builders.
Construction planners had "counted on a higher price for oil and on credit to finance their huge projects."
In addition, demand for such facilities, especially in the Gulf, has died.
"They were hoping that Americans and Europeans would buy apartments. But property prices have collapsed in the Middle East as well."
In the United Arab Emirates more than half the building projects, worth 582 billion dollars or 45 per cent of the total value of the construction sector, have been put on hold, a study by Dubai-based market research group Proleads found in February.
In Dubai, one of the states of the UAE, prices in the real estate sector have slumped by an average of 25 percent from their peak in September after rallying 79 percent in the 18 months to July 2008, according to Morgan Stanley.
Faye said the fate of the steel sector was in addition tied to that of the struggling US auto industry, once a thriving steel market but one in which two of its giant players, General Motors and Chrysler, are staring at bankruptcy.
The two companies are currently limping along thanks to billions of dollars in government aid.
"We are waiting to see if the auto sector in the US will get out of the crisis intact," she said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090411.wrcover11/BNStory/Business
China's runaway steel train
April 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM EDT
FENGRUN, CHINA and TORONTO — Yu Jianshui fidgets in his big leather chair
as he chain-smokes his way through an interview. Times are tough at the
Tangshan Fengrun Zhengda Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
With China suffering its sharpest economic slowdown in decades, Mr. Yu, the
firm's general manager, complains that he is getting fewer and fewer orders
for his main product, huge bars of raw steel known as billets. In his 23
years in steel, “this is the worst I've ever seen.”
Yet under the corrugated metal roofs of his steel mill, blast furnaces
still blast and two assembly lines still roll out 3,000 tonnes of steel a
day.
It is the same story elsewhere in Fengrun, a gritty steel town where the
red flag of the People's Republic flies from giant-like loading derricks.
After shutting briefly when steel prices dipped last fall, most of
Fengrun's more than 100 mills have come back to life to exploit a price
uptick this winter, churning out countless tonnes of pipe, girders, rolled
steel and heavy cable.
And that, Mr. Yu says, is the problem: Not that so many mills are going out
of business, but that so many are still going.
China simply makes too much steel. The government estimates that China's
annual production is about 100 million tonnes more than it should be, a
figure equal to the whole annual output of the industry in the United
States.
Worse, China has far too many steel companies, more than 700 at last count.
Add in iron companies and companies that roll or otherwise shape steel, and
the total comes to more than 7,000. Despite repeated government attempts to
force them to consolidate into fewer, bigger companies, most of them are
still small and inefficient.
By rights, many companies should have closed. Instead, they march on like
zombies, China's industrial undead.
That was not such a problem when China was growing at 10 per cent or more a
year and demand was soaring for products made in the “workshop of the
world.” No matter how much steel China made and how many companies were
making it, there was always a market somewhere.
Now it's a problem, and not just for China and its steel makers. In China
and around the world, demand for steel is plummeting. Producers are cutting
back: Japan's output fell 39 per cent and Germany's 31 per cent in February
from the same month last year.
But China's crude steel production in February actually grew 4.9 per cent,
even as steel exports hit a 52-month low, falling 62 per cent on a yearly
basis. Since last October, most steel makers have been losing money. Prices
for Chinese hot-rolled steel fell to about $400 (U.S.) a tonne in March,
less than half the peak of $980 a tonne hit last year. Even China's Iron
and Steel Association has cautioned that overproduction has risked flooding
the market with unwanted steel.
In its latest master plan for steel, drawn up this winter, Beijing says it
will force the industry to slim down and consolidate. But such edicts have
been issued many times before, and instead, production has continued to
proliferate. Few believe this time is likely to be different.
The impact of China's overproduction is being felt around the world. As
demand for steel products plunges, China's continued strong production is
hurting producers in other countries. Just this week, a group of American
makers of steel pipe used in oil drilling filed complaints with U.S. trade
officials alleging unfair competition from Chinese imports they say have
been dumped on the domestic market.
“That is the challenge of China,” says Michael Willemse, an analyst
with CIBC World Markets in Toronto. “They can be very disruptive to the
global market if their capacity-expansion plans are not consistent with
consumption needs of the industrial economy.”
MINERS STILL HAPPYChina's romance with steel goes back a long way. Chinese
in the Han Dynasty, 1,800 years ago, produced an early form of steel by
combining wrought iron and cast iron.
In the disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1958 to 1961, Mao Zedong made grain
and steel production the centrepiece of his plan to surpass the decadent
West. The Great Helmsman encouraged the people to build backyard steel
furnaces in every commune and neighbourhood. To meet wildly unrealistic
production goals, they melted down pots and pans and burned furniture for
fuel.
When Deng Xiaoping abandoned Maoist economics in 1978, China began building
its steel industry in earnest. As foreign investment poured in and the
economy took off, China ramped up production. In the present decade, it has
grown at an average of more than 20 per cent a year. It now exceeds the
combined production of Japan, the United States, Russia, India, South
Korea, Germany, Ukraine and Brazil.
China became the world's biggest consumer and producer of steel, accounting
for a third of the world's total output.
Like the auto industry in North America, steel in China came to be
considered an essential industry, too big to fail. It directly employs 3.58
million people. Millions more live off it in support roles. As of 2007, it
contributed 4 per cent of China's gross domestic product and 9 per cent of
industrial profits.
For a long time, everyone seemed to benefit. Chinese steel makers were
growing and making money. Foreign steel makers were selling lots of steel
to China, which was a net importer of steel until 2006. Iron ore producers
in resource-rich countries such as Canada made a fortune as the steel boom
pushed up prices for ore.
Indeed, the relatively stable demand from China has helped coking coal and
iron prices weather the global economic collapse better than most
commodities – and if Chinese steel makers remain at their current
production levels, that would not be unwelcome to the international iron
ore and coking coal producers.
At a time when financing for most mining firms has all but disappeared,
China has been a lone source of capital, playing sugar daddy abroad to
shore up the future of the domestic steel industry. Last week, Wuhan Iron
and Steel Group Corp., or WISCO, one of China's largest steel producers,
agreed to invest a total of $240-million to acquire a 20-per-cent stake in
Consolidated Thompson Iron Mines Ltd. and a 25-per-cent stake in the
company's Bloom Lake iron ore development project in Quebec.
But for China, the continuing steel push, once a sign of strength, has
become a sign of weakness.
The sector's prodigious growth made it a vivid symbol of China's rise. Now,
it tells the story of chronic overinvestment and overcapacity, manipulated
lending, political interference in markets and overreliance on heavy
industry – faults that are being exposed by the crisis across many of the
country's industries, and that could cost China dearly as the global
recession grinds on.
Steel is not the only industry plagued by too much capacity and too many
companies. China has 5,000 cement makers, 3,800 glass makers, 3,500 pulp
and paper producers, and no less than 24,000 chemical companies.
“It's a kind of a perpetual theme here,” says Jack Perkowski, now a
merchant banker in Beijing who came to China from the United States almost
20 years ago to start a car parts company – and was startled to find
there were already 150 companies making piston rings.
“If you look at any product, there are usually only half a dozen or so
companies making it in most countries. In China, there are hundreds or
thousands making that same product.”
The reasons behind China's capacity issue say a lot about how China works
– or doesn't – and points to a slew of other problems.
Outsiders tend to think of China as a centralized state with an
all-powerful government that can order industries around at will. In fact,
real power often lies with provincial and local officials, the powerful
barons of the Chinese political system.
Like Canadian premiers, they fight among themselves to attract industry.
And steel is a particular favourite, a “pillar industry” that produces
a crucial raw material for many other prestige industries, like automobiles
and appliances. In China, Mr. Perkowski says, “every town and every
village has to have a steel mill.”
The result is a highly dispersed, even balkanized industry, with production
spread around a half-dozen major steel-producing provinces and a dozen or
more smaller rivals. Those provinces compete constantly to outdo each other
at steel production.
The perennial winner is Hebei province, a traditional industrial powerhouse
in northeastern China, surrounding Beijing and the port of Tianjin.
According to the industry watcher mysteel.net, Hebei – where Mr. Yu's
Fengrun mill is located – won the output “championship” for the
seventh successive year in 2008, producing more than 100 million tonnes.
A value-added tax introduced in 1996 gives the provincial barons even more
incentive to lure steel companies and win bragging rights. A quarter of the
revenue from the VAT goes to local governments.
Balkanization makes for massive inefficiency. In a country like China that
lacks high-grade iron ore, the ideal would be to produce steel in big,
modern plants near coastal ports, making it cheaper to bring in ore and
coking coal, and easier to export production. Instead Chinese mills often
have to bring in their ore over hundreds of kilometres of rail track,
pushing up their costs.
Pushing up pollution, too. A report last month from the Alliance for
American Manufacturing claimed that China's steel industry, with its
massive consumption of coal and electricity, produced half of the carbon
dioxide from world steel production, making it a huge contributor to the
greenhouse gases said to cause global warning. It also claimed that
governments help the industry with more than $15-billion a year in energy
subsidies, adding to pollution and overproduction.
China's government-directed banking system plays a part in runaway steel
output, too. In China, the big banks are run by the state. Their local
branches are often closely tied to local officials.
Eager to reap the taxes they get from steel companies, those officials
arrange with banks to provide financing for new mills. In China, where
labour and land is cheap, mills can be built in a fraction of the time it
takes in the West for a fraction of the cost.
If steel prices are rising, they quickly generate handsome profits. But
that adds to China's capacity and, in time, overcapacity. That, in turn,
puts downward pressure on prices. In a normally functioning market, Mr.
Perkowski says, that would lead to an industry shakeout. Weaker, smaller
mills would close. Production would fall to meet demand.
Not in China. With “everyone incentivized to keep producing,” he writes
in his 2008 book Managing the Dragon, “this capacity never closes.
Instead, the plant churns out product at ever-diminishing prices. As long
as it can sell at a price equal to the variable costs of production, it
keeps producing.” Even if it can't cover those costs, friendly banks may
step in to cover its losses.
“This is a topsy-turvy, helter-skelter model of economic growth where
each province has its own plans and the central government just sits on top
and screams,” says Hans Mueller, an independent consultant based in
Tennessee who follows China's steel industry.
The screaming does not seem to do much good. Beijing's latest master plan
would hold crude steel output to its current level of about 500 million
tonnes. It would move more steel-making capacity to the coastal regions.
And it would raise the minimum size of blast furnaces to 400 cubic metres,
up from 300 at present, with the intention of forcing smaller,
less-efficient mills to close.
The aim is to make its industry more like other countries', with a few big
dominant players. China's top three companies account for only about a
fifth of the country's total production, compared with well over half for
the top three in the United States, Russia or South Korea. South Korea, in
fact, gets 87 per cent of its production from just two giant mills.
To bang heads together, China's cabinet set a goal last month of raising
the share of output from its top five steel companies to 45 per cent of the
total from 28 per cent at present.
Canada's Teck Cominco Ltd., a major producer of coking coal used to make
steel, is betting on the consolidation of the Chinese steel industry.
Although it doesn't sell coal to China now, it hopes to in the future once
more Chinese production moves to the coast, creating demand for seaborne
coal.
Selling to China's coastal regions was a key driver behind the company's
$14-billion (Canadian) takeover last year of Fording Canadian Coal Trust
– a deal that has left Teck straining under more than $9-billion (U.S.)
in debt. “It's one of the reasons that we believe in the coal assets,”
said Teck spokesman Greg Waller. “There is going to be a fundamental
change in the valuation of metallurgical coal in the future.”
If history is any guide, it could take a long time for Teck's coal to get
to China's coast. The Chinese “have been talking about this as a matter
of national state policy since 2001 and the number of steel firms went up
and up and up,” says Daniel Rosen, principal of Rhodium Group, a New York
consultancy. “The reality went in a totally different direction.”
In fact, Beijing's massive four-trillion-yuan economic stimulus program
threatens to worsen steel's obesity issue. Much of the money will be used
for steel-gobbling projects like railway expansion. To further cushion the
industry from the global recession, Beijing is raising a rebate on steel
exports.
Yet despite the likelihood of continued Chinese steel overproduction, the
country's growth could very well serve as the cornerstone for a global
economic recovery.
Na Liu, China strategist at Scotia Capital, says China's iron and copper
imports hit record highs in February, and net imports of aluminum and zinc
are at their highest in several years. China's recent willingness to pay
$140 a tonne for coking coal helped support a 2009 benchmark coal contract
of $129 a tonne that was much higher than many expected.
As for steel, low prices coupled with China's relatively high cost of
production may have already tipped the trade balance in favour of imports.
Russian steel producers “have been selling into the Chinese market at
very competitive prices, and China might actually have become a net
importer of steel in March,” Mr. Liu says.
While China's labour and regulatory costs give it a major advantage over
other steel-producing nations, the bulk of those benefits will eventually
disappear.
“Gradually, Chinese steel mills are going to lose their cost advantages,
as environmental protection and other regulatory costs begin to go
higher,” Mr. Liu says.
Back in Fengrun, Mr. Yu knows his industry may need to change.
“When I was a kid, the country's power was measured by how much steel it
produced,” he says.
Now, he complains that the industry has too much capacity and too many
players. “They can't all survive,” he says. “Some of these companies
have to die off.”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Rosy Scenario forgot to mention...
1. GDP growth turns negative: In the fourth quarter of 2008, GDP declined at an annual rate of 6.3 percent, the largest decline since the first quarter of 1982. The drop in growth reflected a 4.3% decline in consumer spending, a 22.8% fall in spending on homes, a 21.7% decrease in business investment spending, and a 23.6% drop in exports.
2. Job losses accelerate: The U.S. economy shed 663,000 jobs in March 2009. Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost 5.1 million jobs, 2.7 million of them-or 53.35 of the total-in just the last four months.
3. Broad rise in unemployment rates: In March 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.5%-the highest level since October 1983. The African-American unemployment rate stood at 13.3%, the Hispanic unemployment rate at 11.4%, and the unemployment rate for whites at 7.9% in January 2009. Youth unemployment has soared to 21.7%; meanwhile, the unemployment rate for people without a high school diploma grew to 13.3%, compared to 9.0% for those with a high school degree and 4.3% for those with a college degree.
4. Hours at work at historic low: Average weekly hours amounted for production workers-the vast majority of the American workforce-fell to 33.2 hours in March. This was the lowest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started to calculate these data.
5. Wages still up due to low inflation: In February 2009, inflation adjusted weekly earnings were 2.5% higher and hourly earnings were 4.1% higher than a year earlier, largely because of low inflation in recent months. This is unlikely to last. Inflation adjusted weekly and hourly wages have already decreased in January and February 2009.
6. Benefits decreased before the crisis: The share of private sector workers with a pension dropped from 50.3% in 2000 to 45.1% in 2007, and the share of people with employer-provided health insurance dropped from 64.2% in 2000 to 59.3% in 2007.
7. Family wealth disappears at record pace: From June 2007-the last peak of family wealth-to December 2008, total family wealth decreased by $15 trillion in 2008 dollars. This reflects a drop of 22.8% during these 18 months, the fastest decline in any 18-month period since the Federal Reserve started to collect these data in 1952. Total family wealth stood at 483.3% of after-tax income-the lowest level since March 1995.
8. The housing market stalls: New home sales in January 2009 amounted to an annualized, seasonally adjusted rate of 337,000, 41.1% lower than a year earlier, despite a year-over-year drop in median new home prices of 18.1%. At the current rate of new home sales, it will still take 12.2 months to sell all new houses on the market. Existing home sales were 4.6% lower and their median sales price 15.5% less than a year earlier.
9. Homeowners' wealth losses mount: The values of all homes fell by $3.9 trillion from December 2006-the last peak of housing wealth-to December 2008. Home equity to after-tax income has dropped to 74.0%, the lowest level since September 1967, and home equity as share of home values dropped to record low of 44.7% by December 2008.
10. Mortgage troubles mount: One in nine mortgages is delinquent or in foreclosure. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the share of mortgages that were delinquent was 7.9% and the share of mortgages that were in foreclosure was 3.3%. The share of new mortgages going into foreclosure stayed at its record high of 1.1%.
11. Families feel the pressure: Credit card defaults rose to 6.3% of all credit card debt by the fourth quarter of 2008, an increase of 52.4% from the fourth quarter of 2007.
2. Job losses accelerate: The U.S. economy shed 663,000 jobs in March 2009. Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost 5.1 million jobs, 2.7 million of them-or 53.35 of the total-in just the last four months.
3. Broad rise in unemployment rates: In March 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.5%-the highest level since October 1983. The African-American unemployment rate stood at 13.3%, the Hispanic unemployment rate at 11.4%, and the unemployment rate for whites at 7.9% in January 2009. Youth unemployment has soared to 21.7%; meanwhile, the unemployment rate for people without a high school diploma grew to 13.3%, compared to 9.0% for those with a high school degree and 4.3% for those with a college degree.
4. Hours at work at historic low: Average weekly hours amounted for production workers-the vast majority of the American workforce-fell to 33.2 hours in March. This was the lowest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started to calculate these data.
5. Wages still up due to low inflation: In February 2009, inflation adjusted weekly earnings were 2.5% higher and hourly earnings were 4.1% higher than a year earlier, largely because of low inflation in recent months. This is unlikely to last. Inflation adjusted weekly and hourly wages have already decreased in January and February 2009.
6. Benefits decreased before the crisis: The share of private sector workers with a pension dropped from 50.3% in 2000 to 45.1% in 2007, and the share of people with employer-provided health insurance dropped from 64.2% in 2000 to 59.3% in 2007.
7. Family wealth disappears at record pace: From June 2007-the last peak of family wealth-to December 2008, total family wealth decreased by $15 trillion in 2008 dollars. This reflects a drop of 22.8% during these 18 months, the fastest decline in any 18-month period since the Federal Reserve started to collect these data in 1952. Total family wealth stood at 483.3% of after-tax income-the lowest level since March 1995.
8. The housing market stalls: New home sales in January 2009 amounted to an annualized, seasonally adjusted rate of 337,000, 41.1% lower than a year earlier, despite a year-over-year drop in median new home prices of 18.1%. At the current rate of new home sales, it will still take 12.2 months to sell all new houses on the market. Existing home sales were 4.6% lower and their median sales price 15.5% less than a year earlier.
9. Homeowners' wealth losses mount: The values of all homes fell by $3.9 trillion from December 2006-the last peak of housing wealth-to December 2008. Home equity to after-tax income has dropped to 74.0%, the lowest level since September 1967, and home equity as share of home values dropped to record low of 44.7% by December 2008.
10. Mortgage troubles mount: One in nine mortgages is delinquent or in foreclosure. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the share of mortgages that were delinquent was 7.9% and the share of mortgages that were in foreclosure was 3.3%. The share of new mortgages going into foreclosure stayed at its record high of 1.1%.
11. Families feel the pressure: Credit card defaults rose to 6.3% of all credit card debt by the fourth quarter of 2008, an increase of 52.4% from the fourth quarter of 2007.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Why liberals, progressives and the left need to break free of the Democratic Party and how we might accomplish this...
Two articles (read them below or click on their links) more than any others I have read recently--- one in the Christian Science Monitor, the other in the New York Times--- clearly demonstrate the need to initiate and organize a working class based labor party in the United States which will take on the thoroughly reactionary, warmongering and anti-labor policies of Barack Obama, the Democrats and the thoroughly corrupt and incompetent "leaders" of organized labor who are content holding up the tails of a bunch of dumb donkeys.
Failing to seek solutions outside of the Democratic Party will continue to result in the only opposition to Obama coming from the Republicans and other right-wing groups when a full and complete criticism from the left is fully warranted and required.
There is no problem making the needed criticisms from inside the Democratic Party but this isn't being done.
Moves are underway to build the Peace and Freedom Party into a national political party.
In my opinion, this initiative to build the Peace and Freedom Party--- presently based in California--- deserves a good hard look by liberals, progressives and the left.
A very good and viable third party alternative capable of seriously challenging the Democrats and Republicans could result if this national effort is based upon a firm progressive foundation like what we had here in Minnesota with the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party that elected two socialist Governors (Floyd B. Olson and Elmer Benson) and Communist John Bernard to the U.S. Congress along with many Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party candidates being elected to the Minnesota State House and Senate and many local offices... from township and county public officials to city councils... with Floyd B. Olson having been given serious consideration as a possible socialist candidate to challenge Franklin Roosevelt for the presidency(unfortunately Olson suffered an untimely death in succumbing to cancer).
Should the Peace and Freedom Party take up the working class struggle along the lines of the highly successful Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party--- liberals, progressives and the left along with the working class could very well find a permanent political home once and for all in the United States.
In my opinion, liberals, progressives and the left--- especially the working class--- should be looking to creating some kind of political "form" to challenge Obama and the Democrats from the left in state houses and in Congress by insisting on changing the priorities in this country to focusing on the needs of people instead of wars and Wall Street profits.
One organizational form we might want to explore using to challenge Barack Obama and his Wall Street crowd is some kind of "people's lobby."
Building a strong "people's lobby" to challenge Obama and the power of Wall Street by demanding an end to the imperialist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and insisting on the complete reordering of this country's priorities, away from war and military spending and redirected toward meeting the needs of the people.
For instance, we need to be asking why the United States needs over 800 military bases on foreign soil; when, what we really need is 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States providing free comprehensive and basic universal health care to everyone.
A "people's lobby" could challenge the power of the corporations in the streets and in the state houses and in Congress as we put together and build a real progressive alternative to this two-party trap we are stuck in as the Wall Street parasites and vultures pick us clean.
The two articles below clearly demonstrate why we can't trust Obama and the Democrats or their accomplices in organized labor and the Democratic Party controlled and manipulated segment of the anti-war movement.
Most working people and the majority of the American people hold views completely at odds with the Democratic Party and Obama (and these people have clearly rejected the Republicans); the problem is we are not organized to make our voices heard let alone make decisions.
How is it that living in a democracy the majority of the people have no voice and are without any political power capable of making decisions? Lack of organization. Needless fighting amongst ourselves. We can no longer afford the "luxury" of disunity based upon petty differences because the problems we confront are far to severe.
Building an alternative political party, be it the Peace and Freedom Party or some other formation, will require uniting all those who are suffering problems; problems first inflicted by the Republicans and now exacerbated by Barack Obama and the Democrats who have been chosen by Wall Street to implement Wall Street's dirty agenda of wars and poverty from which the coupon clippers of the military-financial-industrial complex profit.
Without organizational forms that have as their purposes to educate and unite people in bringing us all into militant struggle against the power of Wall Street, we are will remain trapped as our standard of living quickly erodes and people die in senseless wars.
We need to challenge these imperialist wars along with the increasing military madness and insanity that robs humanity of the wealth we need to create a society where people live in harmony with nature--- our first priority needs to be taking us off the road to perdition as capitalism crashes; capitalism is on the skids to oblivion... socialism is the only alternative.
We need to be clear that peace is not the same thing as Obama's distorted and perverted view of "peace" which consists of the United States military's successful ending the opposition to occupation; this is not justice--- and the successful occupation of a sovereign nation is in no way the equivalent of peace. Killing and beating down the opposition to the imperialist war in Iraq is not peace.
It is time to part company with those who view the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as appropriate and just. These are imperialist wars that are no more just than the war in Iraq or Israel's attempt to grab through illegal settlements all the land it can steal from the Palestinian people.
U.S. financial and other assistance to the Israeli killing machine is just as wrong as the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can put the resources to much better use solving the problems of working people right here in the United States.
There are many issues which bring honest and sincere liberals, progressives and the left together and if we put our heads together taking into consideration all the problems we have to resolve we should be able to challenge the Democrats and Republicans along with any other reactionary, pro-war racist parties coming along.
Allowing those pro-war "liberals" and class collaborationist, non-struggle union "leaders" to dominate our movements and politics in this country under the guise that Barack Obama "deserves a chance" or that "we need to be careful in how we approach Obama if we want to work with him" is ridiculous... the guy is nothing but a flim-flam man chosen by Wall Street in an effort to thwart the development of a people's challenge to Wall Street's power and control.
The success of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party was achieved when working people with liberal, progressive and left ideas came together to try to solve the problems created as a direct result of Wall Street's greedy drive for profits--- Like now, Wall Street made the economic mess of the 1930's and expected working people to suffer as problems were resolved at the expense of working people--- today, in the same way and progressive traditions of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, we must tell Wall Street things are not going to work the way these greedy vultures and parasites intend.
Let's consider pulling together some kind of "people's lobby" as part or our effort to form and organize a political party capable of challenging the wealthy few for power.
Working people create all wealth; as a result, working people are entitled to establish a political agenda aimed at making the world a better place for everyone to live.
Wars and profits for the few are not the way to go; we are now at war and in this economic mess because for too long we have not challenged the present way of doing things.
These pro-war "liberals" do not represent us; they are not the voices of the legitimate peace movement--- neither do these labor fakers who fear to struggle for justice represent most working people.
We need to build the organizations required to give our voices for peace and social & economic justice a real hearing and we shouldn't be afraid of offending a creep like Barack Obama who sits in silence as the Israeli killing machine piles dead Palestinian children like cord wood and does nothing to stop foreclosures and evictions as a bunch of crooks are allowed to profit from the problems they created.
Let's "bundle" our problems together along with a package of solutions and come together in some kind of "people's lobby" which will serve as a solid base from which to build a real people's alternative to this two-party fiasco passing itself off as the world's greatest bastion of democracy when nothing of the kind is true.
Education. Organization. Unity. Action.
Something to think about...
Alan L. Maki
Antiwar activists split over Obama's Afghanistan policy
Lawmakers and others who were against the Iraq war generally support the president. But they worry about another 'quagmire.'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0404/p99s07-usgn.html
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the April 4, 2009 edition
Washington - The anti-war movement that helped elect Candidate Obama is in the early throes of a debate over whether to ramp up again – this time, over President Obama's plans to step up US engagement in Afghanistan.
For many activists – on and off Capitol Hill – it's a tough call. It's early in a new administration, they say. Even opponents of the troop buildup in Afghanistan say that they like and still trust this president. They want to give him time.
They also like much of what they're hearing from the Obama White House.
Instead of the go-it-alone, "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, Obama pushes concepts like "shared responsibility" and "civilian effort," they say.
But Obama's decision to send another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan to help stabilize "the most dangerous place in the world," as he calls it, is shifting some anti-war activists into (reluctant) opposition. It's also forcing some members of Congress to explain to voters why they opposed a troop buildup in Iraq but now support one in Afghanistan.
"This could be a one-way ticket to a quagmire," says former US Rep. Tom Andrews (D) of Maine, national director of the Win Without War coalition.
"Sometimes less is more. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the deployment of US troops can be a source of instability, not stability," he says. "These are very real concerns that we have, and we want to articulate them in a respectful way."
Since President Obama's announcement of a new strategy in Afghanistan last month, Win Without War and other groups have been trying to revive a dialogue on the war. They're especially urging members of Congress and the news media to get back to the business of vigorous criticism and oversight.
The anti-war movement shifted into low gear after Obama's election. Funding and staffing for most groups dropped, in some cases precipitously. Code Pink activists – a highly visible presence at war hearings and protests in the Bush years – have shifted their target from war to Wall Street.
Some elements of the anti-Iraq War coalition think that the buildup in Afghanistan is warranted, even essential.
"Americans have more business in Afghanistan than they ever did in Iraq, Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia, Panama, or Grenada," says Jon Soltz, chairman and cofounder of VoteVets.org, which rallied veterans against the war in Iraq in the Bush years.
The reason the US is in Afghanistan is that we were attacked, he adds. "As someone who fought in Iraq, I don't think people are as ready to give up on President Obama as they were on George Bush. I'm biased to think that we give this president a chance."
On Capitol Hill, the once-robust Out of Iraq Caucus has also been largely silent on the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Members say they're still working to find common ground.
"We're not there yet," says Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D) of California, a cofounder together with Reps. Barbara Lee (D) and Maxine Waters (D), both of California.
Meanwhile, the Out of Iraq Caucus will be sponsoring forums to help educate members. "History makes it clear that the Afghan people do not look kindly on foreign armies," Rep. Woolsey said in a floor speech on March 30.
"I am also concerned about the cost of sending more troops, the cost in both lives and treasure. It will require a 60 percent increase in military spending at a time when our economy right here at home is suffering so badly," she said. "Now is the time to pause to consider whether there are other alternatives to sending our troops to Afghanistan."
United in opposition to the war in Iraq, liberal Democrats – many of whom have yet to state publicly their view on the buildup – are breaking out more nuanced positions on the war in Afghanistan. Some favor it; some oppose it. All want the president to be successful, and they say it's too early for a confrontation on the policy.
"He's moving away from a military-only protocol that was the hallmark of the Bush years – to the degree that Bush and Cheney were interested in Afghanistan at all – in favor of a community-based, civilian-based, civil society-based policy," says Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) of Hawaii, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
"Whether or not that succeeds obviously is something that is still open, but it won't be from lack of effort on the president's part," he says.
Another caucus member, Rep. Jim McDermott (D) of Washington, who opposes the buildup, worries that the president may yet be drawn into a mainly military approach to the conflict.
"Those of us who lived through Vietnam are very upset with what's going on [in Afghanistan]," he says. "All of us want him to succeed, desperately want him to succeed. But we worry that as John Kennedy got wrapped up by those guys that sent him to the Bay of Pigs, he'll listen to the guys who say: 'Mr. President, you want to look good, don't you? You don't want to look like a quitter or a loser or weak?'"
But even before they confront the president, Democrats are confronting concerns at home about the new direction of the war in Afghanistan.
Rep. Paul Hodes (D) of New Hampshire, who campaigned against the war in Iraq, saw the first anti-war protests of the Obama administration last month in his hometown of Concord. Even though the protests are small, he says he needs to explain his stance to voters, and the situation is "difficult and complex."
"I opposed the war in Iraq because it was not merely a diversion from the effort that we need to make to battle terrorism, not merely because it was sold on false premises, but because it made us less safe and secure as a country and a world," he says.
"I have long believed that our efforts needed to be directed to Pakistan and Afghanistan in a coherent way with a comprehensive strategy that does not rely on military force alone," he adds.
New Hampshire peace activists planning vigils in Nashua, Concord, and Durham next week to protest the buildup in Afghanistan say they expect to meet with their congressional delegation on the issue.
"We're very concerned that the president announced the increase in troops even before having a coherent plan in place," says Anne Miller, executive director of Peace Action of New Hampshire, which claims some 3,000 members statewide.
"We're still not clear what this plan will accomplish, what benchmarks are, what a win would look like," she adds. "We have colleagues that just got back from Kabul and not one Afghani they spoke to thought that having more troops there would make a difference."
For the most part, Americans aren't focused on the war in Afghanistan, pollsters say. Wall Street and the economy are much bigger concerns, but that's beginning to shift, too.
"There's polling data showing a higher percentage of those saying that the war in Afghanistan has not been worth it," says pollster John Zogby of Zogby International.
"Americans like their wars to be won and short. But President Obama is still getting some slack, as far as the public is concerned," he adds.
As candidate, Obama clearly signaled his intent as president to withdraw US forces from Iraq to refocus energies on the war in Afghanistan. That clarity helps give credibility to the steps he's taking now, say Congress watchers.
"You've got a lot of antiwar liberals who said he didn't really mean that – that he's just talking that way to look tough. What we're learning is that, like many things he's doing on the domestic front, he's doing what he said," says Norman Ornstein a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
"He's got a year – and the protests will start before that," he adds. "If it looks like we're bogged down and lot of Americans are dying, we're in a different situation."
In America, Labor Has an Unusually Long Fuse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/weekinreview/05greenhouse.html?_r=1
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: April 4, 2009
The workers and other protesters who gathered en masse at the Group of 20 summit meeting last week in London were continuing a time-honored European tradition of taking their grievances into the streets.
Two weeks earlier, more than a million workers in France demonstrated against layoffs and the government’s handling of the economic crisis, and in the last month alone, French workers took their bosses hostage four times in various labor disputes. When General Motors recently announced huge job cuts worldwide, 15,000 workers demonstrated at the company’s German headquarters.
But in the United States, where G.M. plans its biggest layoffs, union members have seemed passive in comparison. They may yell at the television news, but that’s about all. Unlike their European counterparts, American workers have largely stayed off the streets, even as unemployment soars and companies cut wages and benefits.
The country of Mother Jones, John L. Lewis and Walter Reuther certainly has had a rich and sometimes militant history of labor protest — from the Homestead Steel Works strike against Andrew Carnegie in 1892 to the auto workers’ sit-down strikes of the 1930s and the 67-day walkout by 400,000 G.M. workers in 1970.
But in recent decades, American workers have increasingly steered clear of such militancy, for reasons that range from fear of having their jobs shipped overseas to their self-image as full-fledged members of the middle class, with all its trappings and aspirations.
David Kennedy, a Stanford historian and author of “Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,” says that America’s individualist streak is a major reason for this reluctance to take to the streets. Citing a 1940 study by the social psychologist Mirra Komarovsky, he said her interviews of the Depression-era unemployed found “the psychological reaction was to feel guilty and ashamed, that they had failed personally.”
Taken together, guilt, shame and individualism undercut any impulse to collective action, then as now, Professor Kennedy said. Noting that Americans felt stunned and desperately insecure during the Depression’s early years, he wrote: “What struck most observers, and mystified them, was the eerie docility of the American people, their stoic passivity as the Depression grindstone rolled over them.”
By the mid-1930s, though, worker protests increased in number and militancy. They were fueled by the then-powerful Communist and Socialist Parties and frustrations over continuing deprivation. Workers also felt that they had President Roosevelt’s blessing for collective action because he signed the Wagner Act in 1935, giving workers the right to unionize.
“Remember, at that time, you had Hoovervilles and 25 percent unemployment,” said Daniel Bell, a professor emeritus of sociology at Harvard. “Many people felt that capitalism was finished.”
General strikes paralyzed San Francisco and Minneapolis, and a six-week sit-down strike at a G.M. plant in Flint, Mich., pressured the company into recognizing the United Automobile Workers. In the decade’s ugliest showdown, a 1937 strike against Republic Steel in Chicago, 10 protesters were shot to death. That militancy helped build a powerful labor movement, which represented 35 percent of the nation’s workers by the 1950s and helped create the world’s largest and richest middle class.
Today, American workers, even those earning $20,000 a year, tend to view themselves as part of an upwardly mobile middle class. In contrast, European workers often still see themselves as proletarians in an enduring class struggle.
And American labor leaders, once up-from-the-street rabble-rousers, now often work hand-in-hand with C.E.O.’s to improve corporate competitiveness to protect jobs and pensions, and try to sideline activists who support a hard line.
“You have a general diminution of union leadership that was focused on defending workers by any means necessary,” said Jerry Tucker, a longtime U.A.W. militant. “The message from the union leadership nowadays often is, ‘We don’t have any choice, we have to go down this concessionary road to see if we can do damage control,’ ” he said.
In the case of the Detroit automakers, a strike might not only hasten their demise but infuriate many Americans who already view auto workers as overpaid. It might also make Washington less receptive to a bailout.
Labor’s aggressiveness has also been sapped by its declining numbers. Unions represent just 7.4 percent of private-sector workers today.
Unions have also grown more cautious as management has become more aggressive. A watershed came in 1981 when the nation’s air traffic controllers engaged in an illegal strike. President Reagan quickly fired the 11,500 striking traffic controllers, hired replacements and soon got the airports running. After that confrontation, labor’s willingness to strike shrank markedly.
American workers still occasionally vent their anger in protests and strikes. There were demonstrations against the A.I.G. bonuses, for instance, and workers staged a sit-down strike in December when their factory in Chicago was closed. But the numbers tell the story: Last year, American unions engaged in 159 work stoppages, down from 1,352 in 1981, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, a publisher of legal and regulatory news.
Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University, said that while demonstrations remain a vital outlet for the European left, for Americans “the Internet now somehow serves as the main outlet” with angry blogs and mass e-mailing.
Left-leaning workers and unions that might be most prone to stage protests during today’s economic crisis are often the ones most enthusiastic about President Obama and his efforts to revive the economy, help unions and enact universal health coverage. Instead of taking to the streets last fall to protest the gathering economic crisis under President Bush, many workers and unions campaigned for Mr. Obama.
Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said there were smarter things to do than demonstrating against layoffs — for instance, pushing Congress and the states to make sure the stimulus plan creates the maximum number of jobs in the United States.
“I actually believe that Americans believe in their political system more than workers do in other parts of the world,” Mr. Gerard said. He said large labor demonstrations are often warranted in Canada and European countries to pressure parliamentary leaders. Demonstrations are less needed in the United States, he said, because often all that is needed is some expert lobbying in Washington to line up the support of a half-dozen senators.
Professor Kennedy saw another reason that today’s young workers and young people were protesting less than in decades past. “This generation,” he said, has “ found more effective ways to change the world. It’s signed up for political campaigns, and it’s not waiting for things to get so desperate that they feel forced to take to the streets.”
Obviously, the New York Times is trying to establish a position for labor which fits in well with Wall Street's plans to squeeze everything out of the working class. Workers should read what Steven Greenhouse has been writing and will continue to write aimed at establishing a thoroughly docile and class collaborationist position for labor writing under the guise of "objectivity:"
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/steven_greenhouse/index.html
Failing to seek solutions outside of the Democratic Party will continue to result in the only opposition to Obama coming from the Republicans and other right-wing groups when a full and complete criticism from the left is fully warranted and required.
There is no problem making the needed criticisms from inside the Democratic Party but this isn't being done.
Moves are underway to build the Peace and Freedom Party into a national political party.
In my opinion, this initiative to build the Peace and Freedom Party--- presently based in California--- deserves a good hard look by liberals, progressives and the left.
A very good and viable third party alternative capable of seriously challenging the Democrats and Republicans could result if this national effort is based upon a firm progressive foundation like what we had here in Minnesota with the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party that elected two socialist Governors (Floyd B. Olson and Elmer Benson) and Communist John Bernard to the U.S. Congress along with many Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party candidates being elected to the Minnesota State House and Senate and many local offices... from township and county public officials to city councils... with Floyd B. Olson having been given serious consideration as a possible socialist candidate to challenge Franklin Roosevelt for the presidency(unfortunately Olson suffered an untimely death in succumbing to cancer).
Should the Peace and Freedom Party take up the working class struggle along the lines of the highly successful Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party--- liberals, progressives and the left along with the working class could very well find a permanent political home once and for all in the United States.
In my opinion, liberals, progressives and the left--- especially the working class--- should be looking to creating some kind of political "form" to challenge Obama and the Democrats from the left in state houses and in Congress by insisting on changing the priorities in this country to focusing on the needs of people instead of wars and Wall Street profits.
One organizational form we might want to explore using to challenge Barack Obama and his Wall Street crowd is some kind of "people's lobby."
Building a strong "people's lobby" to challenge Obama and the power of Wall Street by demanding an end to the imperialist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and insisting on the complete reordering of this country's priorities, away from war and military spending and redirected toward meeting the needs of the people.
For instance, we need to be asking why the United States needs over 800 military bases on foreign soil; when, what we really need is 800 public health care centers spread out across the United States providing free comprehensive and basic universal health care to everyone.
A "people's lobby" could challenge the power of the corporations in the streets and in the state houses and in Congress as we put together and build a real progressive alternative to this two-party trap we are stuck in as the Wall Street parasites and vultures pick us clean.
The two articles below clearly demonstrate why we can't trust Obama and the Democrats or their accomplices in organized labor and the Democratic Party controlled and manipulated segment of the anti-war movement.
Most working people and the majority of the American people hold views completely at odds with the Democratic Party and Obama (and these people have clearly rejected the Republicans); the problem is we are not organized to make our voices heard let alone make decisions.
How is it that living in a democracy the majority of the people have no voice and are without any political power capable of making decisions? Lack of organization. Needless fighting amongst ourselves. We can no longer afford the "luxury" of disunity based upon petty differences because the problems we confront are far to severe.
Building an alternative political party, be it the Peace and Freedom Party or some other formation, will require uniting all those who are suffering problems; problems first inflicted by the Republicans and now exacerbated by Barack Obama and the Democrats who have been chosen by Wall Street to implement Wall Street's dirty agenda of wars and poverty from which the coupon clippers of the military-financial-industrial complex profit.
Without organizational forms that have as their purposes to educate and unite people in bringing us all into militant struggle against the power of Wall Street, we are will remain trapped as our standard of living quickly erodes and people die in senseless wars.
We need to challenge these imperialist wars along with the increasing military madness and insanity that robs humanity of the wealth we need to create a society where people live in harmony with nature--- our first priority needs to be taking us off the road to perdition as capitalism crashes; capitalism is on the skids to oblivion... socialism is the only alternative.
We need to be clear that peace is not the same thing as Obama's distorted and perverted view of "peace" which consists of the United States military's successful ending the opposition to occupation; this is not justice--- and the successful occupation of a sovereign nation is in no way the equivalent of peace. Killing and beating down the opposition to the imperialist war in Iraq is not peace.
It is time to part company with those who view the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as appropriate and just. These are imperialist wars that are no more just than the war in Iraq or Israel's attempt to grab through illegal settlements all the land it can steal from the Palestinian people.
U.S. financial and other assistance to the Israeli killing machine is just as wrong as the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can put the resources to much better use solving the problems of working people right here in the United States.
There are many issues which bring honest and sincere liberals, progressives and the left together and if we put our heads together taking into consideration all the problems we have to resolve we should be able to challenge the Democrats and Republicans along with any other reactionary, pro-war racist parties coming along.
Allowing those pro-war "liberals" and class collaborationist, non-struggle union "leaders" to dominate our movements and politics in this country under the guise that Barack Obama "deserves a chance" or that "we need to be careful in how we approach Obama if we want to work with him" is ridiculous... the guy is nothing but a flim-flam man chosen by Wall Street in an effort to thwart the development of a people's challenge to Wall Street's power and control.
The success of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party was achieved when working people with liberal, progressive and left ideas came together to try to solve the problems created as a direct result of Wall Street's greedy drive for profits--- Like now, Wall Street made the economic mess of the 1930's and expected working people to suffer as problems were resolved at the expense of working people--- today, in the same way and progressive traditions of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, we must tell Wall Street things are not going to work the way these greedy vultures and parasites intend.
Let's consider pulling together some kind of "people's lobby" as part or our effort to form and organize a political party capable of challenging the wealthy few for power.
Working people create all wealth; as a result, working people are entitled to establish a political agenda aimed at making the world a better place for everyone to live.
Wars and profits for the few are not the way to go; we are now at war and in this economic mess because for too long we have not challenged the present way of doing things.
These pro-war "liberals" do not represent us; they are not the voices of the legitimate peace movement--- neither do these labor fakers who fear to struggle for justice represent most working people.
We need to build the organizations required to give our voices for peace and social & economic justice a real hearing and we shouldn't be afraid of offending a creep like Barack Obama who sits in silence as the Israeli killing machine piles dead Palestinian children like cord wood and does nothing to stop foreclosures and evictions as a bunch of crooks are allowed to profit from the problems they created.
Let's "bundle" our problems together along with a package of solutions and come together in some kind of "people's lobby" which will serve as a solid base from which to build a real people's alternative to this two-party fiasco passing itself off as the world's greatest bastion of democracy when nothing of the kind is true.
Education. Organization. Unity. Action.
Something to think about...
Alan L. Maki
Antiwar activists split over Obama's Afghanistan policy
Lawmakers and others who were against the Iraq war generally support the president. But they worry about another 'quagmire.'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0404/p99s07-usgn.html
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the April 4, 2009 edition
Washington - The anti-war movement that helped elect Candidate Obama is in the early throes of a debate over whether to ramp up again – this time, over President Obama's plans to step up US engagement in Afghanistan.
For many activists – on and off Capitol Hill – it's a tough call. It's early in a new administration, they say. Even opponents of the troop buildup in Afghanistan say that they like and still trust this president. They want to give him time.
They also like much of what they're hearing from the Obama White House.
Instead of the go-it-alone, "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, Obama pushes concepts like "shared responsibility" and "civilian effort," they say.
But Obama's decision to send another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan to help stabilize "the most dangerous place in the world," as he calls it, is shifting some anti-war activists into (reluctant) opposition. It's also forcing some members of Congress to explain to voters why they opposed a troop buildup in Iraq but now support one in Afghanistan.
"This could be a one-way ticket to a quagmire," says former US Rep. Tom Andrews (D) of Maine, national director of the Win Without War coalition.
"Sometimes less is more. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the deployment of US troops can be a source of instability, not stability," he says. "These are very real concerns that we have, and we want to articulate them in a respectful way."
Since President Obama's announcement of a new strategy in Afghanistan last month, Win Without War and other groups have been trying to revive a dialogue on the war. They're especially urging members of Congress and the news media to get back to the business of vigorous criticism and oversight.
The anti-war movement shifted into low gear after Obama's election. Funding and staffing for most groups dropped, in some cases precipitously. Code Pink activists – a highly visible presence at war hearings and protests in the Bush years – have shifted their target from war to Wall Street.
Some elements of the anti-Iraq War coalition think that the buildup in Afghanistan is warranted, even essential.
"Americans have more business in Afghanistan than they ever did in Iraq, Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia, Panama, or Grenada," says Jon Soltz, chairman and cofounder of VoteVets.org, which rallied veterans against the war in Iraq in the Bush years.
The reason the US is in Afghanistan is that we were attacked, he adds. "As someone who fought in Iraq, I don't think people are as ready to give up on President Obama as they were on George Bush. I'm biased to think that we give this president a chance."
On Capitol Hill, the once-robust Out of Iraq Caucus has also been largely silent on the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Members say they're still working to find common ground.
"We're not there yet," says Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D) of California, a cofounder together with Reps. Barbara Lee (D) and Maxine Waters (D), both of California.
Meanwhile, the Out of Iraq Caucus will be sponsoring forums to help educate members. "History makes it clear that the Afghan people do not look kindly on foreign armies," Rep. Woolsey said in a floor speech on March 30.
"I am also concerned about the cost of sending more troops, the cost in both lives and treasure. It will require a 60 percent increase in military spending at a time when our economy right here at home is suffering so badly," she said. "Now is the time to pause to consider whether there are other alternatives to sending our troops to Afghanistan."
United in opposition to the war in Iraq, liberal Democrats – many of whom have yet to state publicly their view on the buildup – are breaking out more nuanced positions on the war in Afghanistan. Some favor it; some oppose it. All want the president to be successful, and they say it's too early for a confrontation on the policy.
"He's moving away from a military-only protocol that was the hallmark of the Bush years – to the degree that Bush and Cheney were interested in Afghanistan at all – in favor of a community-based, civilian-based, civil society-based policy," says Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) of Hawaii, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
"Whether or not that succeeds obviously is something that is still open, but it won't be from lack of effort on the president's part," he says.
Another caucus member, Rep. Jim McDermott (D) of Washington, who opposes the buildup, worries that the president may yet be drawn into a mainly military approach to the conflict.
"Those of us who lived through Vietnam are very upset with what's going on [in Afghanistan]," he says. "All of us want him to succeed, desperately want him to succeed. But we worry that as John Kennedy got wrapped up by those guys that sent him to the Bay of Pigs, he'll listen to the guys who say: 'Mr. President, you want to look good, don't you? You don't want to look like a quitter or a loser or weak?'"
But even before they confront the president, Democrats are confronting concerns at home about the new direction of the war in Afghanistan.
Rep. Paul Hodes (D) of New Hampshire, who campaigned against the war in Iraq, saw the first anti-war protests of the Obama administration last month in his hometown of Concord. Even though the protests are small, he says he needs to explain his stance to voters, and the situation is "difficult and complex."
"I opposed the war in Iraq because it was not merely a diversion from the effort that we need to make to battle terrorism, not merely because it was sold on false premises, but because it made us less safe and secure as a country and a world," he says.
"I have long believed that our efforts needed to be directed to Pakistan and Afghanistan in a coherent way with a comprehensive strategy that does not rely on military force alone," he adds.
New Hampshire peace activists planning vigils in Nashua, Concord, and Durham next week to protest the buildup in Afghanistan say they expect to meet with their congressional delegation on the issue.
"We're very concerned that the president announced the increase in troops even before having a coherent plan in place," says Anne Miller, executive director of Peace Action of New Hampshire, which claims some 3,000 members statewide.
"We're still not clear what this plan will accomplish, what benchmarks are, what a win would look like," she adds. "We have colleagues that just got back from Kabul and not one Afghani they spoke to thought that having more troops there would make a difference."
For the most part, Americans aren't focused on the war in Afghanistan, pollsters say. Wall Street and the economy are much bigger concerns, but that's beginning to shift, too.
"There's polling data showing a higher percentage of those saying that the war in Afghanistan has not been worth it," says pollster John Zogby of Zogby International.
"Americans like their wars to be won and short. But President Obama is still getting some slack, as far as the public is concerned," he adds.
As candidate, Obama clearly signaled his intent as president to withdraw US forces from Iraq to refocus energies on the war in Afghanistan. That clarity helps give credibility to the steps he's taking now, say Congress watchers.
"You've got a lot of antiwar liberals who said he didn't really mean that – that he's just talking that way to look tough. What we're learning is that, like many things he's doing on the domestic front, he's doing what he said," says Norman Ornstein a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
"He's got a year – and the protests will start before that," he adds. "If it looks like we're bogged down and lot of Americans are dying, we're in a different situation."
In America, Labor Has an Unusually Long Fuse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/weekinreview/05greenhouse.html?_r=1
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: April 4, 2009
The workers and other protesters who gathered en masse at the Group of 20 summit meeting last week in London were continuing a time-honored European tradition of taking their grievances into the streets.
Two weeks earlier, more than a million workers in France demonstrated against layoffs and the government’s handling of the economic crisis, and in the last month alone, French workers took their bosses hostage four times in various labor disputes. When General Motors recently announced huge job cuts worldwide, 15,000 workers demonstrated at the company’s German headquarters.
But in the United States, where G.M. plans its biggest layoffs, union members have seemed passive in comparison. They may yell at the television news, but that’s about all. Unlike their European counterparts, American workers have largely stayed off the streets, even as unemployment soars and companies cut wages and benefits.
The country of Mother Jones, John L. Lewis and Walter Reuther certainly has had a rich and sometimes militant history of labor protest — from the Homestead Steel Works strike against Andrew Carnegie in 1892 to the auto workers’ sit-down strikes of the 1930s and the 67-day walkout by 400,000 G.M. workers in 1970.
But in recent decades, American workers have increasingly steered clear of such militancy, for reasons that range from fear of having their jobs shipped overseas to their self-image as full-fledged members of the middle class, with all its trappings and aspirations.
David Kennedy, a Stanford historian and author of “Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,” says that America’s individualist streak is a major reason for this reluctance to take to the streets. Citing a 1940 study by the social psychologist Mirra Komarovsky, he said her interviews of the Depression-era unemployed found “the psychological reaction was to feel guilty and ashamed, that they had failed personally.”
Taken together, guilt, shame and individualism undercut any impulse to collective action, then as now, Professor Kennedy said. Noting that Americans felt stunned and desperately insecure during the Depression’s early years, he wrote: “What struck most observers, and mystified them, was the eerie docility of the American people, their stoic passivity as the Depression grindstone rolled over them.”
By the mid-1930s, though, worker protests increased in number and militancy. They were fueled by the then-powerful Communist and Socialist Parties and frustrations over continuing deprivation. Workers also felt that they had President Roosevelt’s blessing for collective action because he signed the Wagner Act in 1935, giving workers the right to unionize.
“Remember, at that time, you had Hoovervilles and 25 percent unemployment,” said Daniel Bell, a professor emeritus of sociology at Harvard. “Many people felt that capitalism was finished.”
General strikes paralyzed San Francisco and Minneapolis, and a six-week sit-down strike at a G.M. plant in Flint, Mich., pressured the company into recognizing the United Automobile Workers. In the decade’s ugliest showdown, a 1937 strike against Republic Steel in Chicago, 10 protesters were shot to death. That militancy helped build a powerful labor movement, which represented 35 percent of the nation’s workers by the 1950s and helped create the world’s largest and richest middle class.
Today, American workers, even those earning $20,000 a year, tend to view themselves as part of an upwardly mobile middle class. In contrast, European workers often still see themselves as proletarians in an enduring class struggle.
And American labor leaders, once up-from-the-street rabble-rousers, now often work hand-in-hand with C.E.O.’s to improve corporate competitiveness to protect jobs and pensions, and try to sideline activists who support a hard line.
“You have a general diminution of union leadership that was focused on defending workers by any means necessary,” said Jerry Tucker, a longtime U.A.W. militant. “The message from the union leadership nowadays often is, ‘We don’t have any choice, we have to go down this concessionary road to see if we can do damage control,’ ” he said.
In the case of the Detroit automakers, a strike might not only hasten their demise but infuriate many Americans who already view auto workers as overpaid. It might also make Washington less receptive to a bailout.
Labor’s aggressiveness has also been sapped by its declining numbers. Unions represent just 7.4 percent of private-sector workers today.
Unions have also grown more cautious as management has become more aggressive. A watershed came in 1981 when the nation’s air traffic controllers engaged in an illegal strike. President Reagan quickly fired the 11,500 striking traffic controllers, hired replacements and soon got the airports running. After that confrontation, labor’s willingness to strike shrank markedly.
American workers still occasionally vent their anger in protests and strikes. There were demonstrations against the A.I.G. bonuses, for instance, and workers staged a sit-down strike in December when their factory in Chicago was closed. But the numbers tell the story: Last year, American unions engaged in 159 work stoppages, down from 1,352 in 1981, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, a publisher of legal and regulatory news.
Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University, said that while demonstrations remain a vital outlet for the European left, for Americans “the Internet now somehow serves as the main outlet” with angry blogs and mass e-mailing.
Left-leaning workers and unions that might be most prone to stage protests during today’s economic crisis are often the ones most enthusiastic about President Obama and his efforts to revive the economy, help unions and enact universal health coverage. Instead of taking to the streets last fall to protest the gathering economic crisis under President Bush, many workers and unions campaigned for Mr. Obama.
Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said there were smarter things to do than demonstrating against layoffs — for instance, pushing Congress and the states to make sure the stimulus plan creates the maximum number of jobs in the United States.
“I actually believe that Americans believe in their political system more than workers do in other parts of the world,” Mr. Gerard said. He said large labor demonstrations are often warranted in Canada and European countries to pressure parliamentary leaders. Demonstrations are less needed in the United States, he said, because often all that is needed is some expert lobbying in Washington to line up the support of a half-dozen senators.
Professor Kennedy saw another reason that today’s young workers and young people were protesting less than in decades past. “This generation,” he said, has “ found more effective ways to change the world. It’s signed up for political campaigns, and it’s not waiting for things to get so desperate that they feel forced to take to the streets.”
Obviously, the New York Times is trying to establish a position for labor which fits in well with Wall Street's plans to squeeze everything out of the working class. Workers should read what Steven Greenhouse has been writing and will continue to write aimed at establishing a thoroughly docile and class collaborationist position for labor writing under the guise of "objectivity:"
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/steven_greenhouse/index.html
Friday, April 3, 2009
Jobless rate bolts to 8.5 percent, 663K jobs lost
This article from the Associated Press has the headline:
Even the over-paid capitalist sooth-Sayers pretending to be economists now hiding behind Rosy Scenario's short skirt are admitting there is no end in sight... the bottom has not been reached... worse yet, no one has any idea how long we will remain at the bottom when we hit bottom... if there is a bottom... for the working class, there may in fact be no bottom but just a continual fall; deeper and deeper into a bottomless pit because the "experts" are claiming most people may not even know there has been a "recovery" when the "recovery" occurs.
Professor Sidney Gluck has offered people some excellent advice about understanding the crises we are in.
Professor Gluck recommends we read Chapter 26 of Capital by Karl Marx.
Here is Chapter 26 of Capital by Karl Marx:
Now read this article from the Associated Press... and when you are done reading this article re-read Chapter 26 from Capital again and you will see why "Capital" is becoming one of the most sought after books today being widely discussed by working people around the world...
If you would like to explore the ideas put forward by Karl Marx further in Volume One of Capital, I would encourage you to check out this web site of Professor David Harvey where he reads and explains Volume One of "Capital" in thirteen free on-line lessons:
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
Check it out, its a free college education from a leading Marxist educator.
I will be posting all three volumes of Marx' Capital as a blog in the next few weeks which you will be able to get to through my blog:
Socialism: Theory and Practice
Working people need to get up to speed quickly in understanding what is going on in this country.
Consider inviting a few friends over to gather around your computer to watch and listen to the excellent free on-line course being offered on "Capital" by David Harvey... such a gathering could become a "club" where you and your friends gather on a regular basis to discuss and think about problems working people are experiencing and talk about what kind of solutions to your collective problems are possible... and, you might even come up with a course of action.
In addition to Professor Harvey's thirteen part series studying Volume One of "Capital," you might want to read Albert Einstein's brilliant and easy to understand essay: "Why Socialism?"
Something to think about around the kitchen table,
Alan L. Maki
Jobless rate bolts to 8.5 percent, 663,000 jobs lost in one month
Even the over-paid capitalist sooth-Sayers pretending to be economists now hiding behind Rosy Scenario's short skirt are admitting there is no end in sight... the bottom has not been reached... worse yet, no one has any idea how long we will remain at the bottom when we hit bottom... if there is a bottom... for the working class, there may in fact be no bottom but just a continual fall; deeper and deeper into a bottomless pit because the "experts" are claiming most people may not even know there has been a "recovery" when the "recovery" occurs.
Professor Sidney Gluck has offered people some excellent advice about understanding the crises we are in.
Professor Gluck recommends we read Chapter 26 of Capital by Karl Marx.
Here is Chapter 26 of Capital by Karl Marx:
Karl Marx
Capital Volume One
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VIII:
Primative Accumulation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX:
THE SECRET OF PRIMATIVE ACCUMULATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital pre-supposes surplus-value; surplus-value pre-supposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labor-power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point.
This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is be no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labor, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property. M. Thiers, e.g., had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a statesman to the French people, once so spirituel. But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all tages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and "labor" were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.
In themselves money and commodities are no more capital than are the means of production and of subsistence. They want transforming into capital. But this transformation itself can only take place under certain circumstances that centre in this, viz., that two very different kinds of commodity-possessors must come face to face and into contact, on the one hand, the owners of money, means of production, means of subsistence, who are eager to increase the sum of values they possess, by buying other people's labor-power; on the other hand, free laborers, the sellers of their own labor-power, and therefore the sellers of labor. Free laborers, in the double sense that neither they themselves form part and parcel of the means of production, as in the case of slaves, bondsmen, &c., nor do the means of production belong to them, as in the case of peasant-proprietors; they are, therefore, free from, unencumbered by, any means of production of their own. With this polarization of th e market for commodities, the fundamental conditions of capitalist production are given. The capitalist system pre-supposes the complete separation of the laborers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labor. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale. The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the laborer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate producers into wage-laborers. The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it.
The economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the elements of the former.
The immediate producer, the laborer, could only dispose of his own person after he had ceased to be attached to the soil and ceased to be the slaver, serf, or bondsman of another. To become a free seller of labor-power, who carries his commodity wherever he finds a market, he must further have escaped from the regime of the guilds, their rules for apprentices and journeymen, and the impediments of their labor regulations. Hence, the historical movement which changes the producers into wage-workers, appears, on the one hand, as their emancipation from serfdom and from the fetters of the guilds, and this side alone exists for our bourgeois historians. But, on the other hand, these new freedmen became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and of all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.
The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to disgrace the guild maters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords,the possessors of the sources of wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers d'industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus.
The starting-point of the development that gave rise to the wage-laborer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the laborer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. To understand its march, we need not go back very far. Although we come across the first beginnings of capitalist production as early as the 14th or 15th century, sporadically, in certain towns of the Mediterranean, the capitalistic era dates from the 16th century. Wherever it appears, the abolition of serfdom has been long effected, and the highest development of the middle ages, the existence of sovereign towns, has been long on the wane.
In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the capital class in course of formation; but, above all, those moments when great masses of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free and "unattached" proletarians on the labor market. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation, in different countries, assumes different aspects, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, nd at different periods. In England alone, which we take as our example, has it the classic form. [1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[1] In Italy, where capitalistic production developed earliest, the dissolution of serfdom also took place earlier than elsewhere. The serf was emancipated in that country before he had acquired any prescriptive right to the soil. His emancipation at once transformed him into a free proletarian, who, moreover, found his master ready and waiting for him in the towns, for the most part handed down as legacies from the Roman time. When the revolution of the world-market, about the end of the 15th century, annihilated Northern Italy's commercial supremacy, a movement in the reverse direction set in. The laborers of the towns were driven en masse into the country, and gave an impulse, never before seen, to the petite culture, carried on in the form of gardening.
Now read this article from the Associated Press... and when you are done reading this article re-read Chapter 26 from Capital again and you will see why "Capital" is becoming one of the most sought after books today being widely discussed by working people around the world...
If you would like to explore the ideas put forward by Karl Marx further in Volume One of Capital, I would encourage you to check out this web site of Professor David Harvey where he reads and explains Volume One of "Capital" in thirteen free on-line lessons:
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
Check it out, its a free college education from a leading Marxist educator.
I will be posting all three volumes of Marx' Capital as a blog in the next few weeks which you will be able to get to through my blog:
Socialism: Theory and Practice
Working people need to get up to speed quickly in understanding what is going on in this country.
Consider inviting a few friends over to gather around your computer to watch and listen to the excellent free on-line course being offered on "Capital" by David Harvey... such a gathering could become a "club" where you and your friends gather on a regular basis to discuss and think about problems working people are experiencing and talk about what kind of solutions to your collective problems are possible... and, you might even come up with a course of action.
In addition to Professor Harvey's thirteen part series studying Volume One of "Capital," you might want to read Albert Einstein's brilliant and easy to understand essay: "Why Socialism?"
Something to think about around the kitchen table,
Alan L. Maki
Jobless rate bolts to 8.5 percent, 663K jobs lost
Apr 3, 9:43 AM (ET)
By JEANNINE AVERSA
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090403/D97B14OG0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 8.5 percent in March, the highest since late 1983, as a wide swath of employers eliminated 663,000 jobs. It's fresh evidence of the toll the recession has inflicted on America's workers, and economists say there's no relief in sight.
If part-time and discouraged workers are factored in, the unemployment rate would have been 15.6 percent in March, the highest on records dating to 1994, according to Labor Department data released Friday.
The average work week in March dropped to 33.2 hours, a new record low.
"It's an ugly report and April is going to be equally as bad," predicted Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.
Last month's tally of job losses was slightly higher than the 654,000 that economists expected. The rise in the unemployment rate matched expectations.
Employers cut 651,000 jobs in February when the jobless rate was 8.1 percent, the same as initially estimated. January's job losses, however, were revised much higher, to 741,000 from 655,000.
Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 5.1 million jobs, with almost two-thirds of the losses occurring in the last five months.
The number of unemployed people climbed to 13.2 million in March. In addition, the number of people forced to work part time for "economic reasons" rose by 423,000 to 9 million. Those are people who would like to work full time but whose hours were cut back or were unable to find full-time work.
Looking forward, economists expect monthly job losses continuing for most - if not all of - this year.
However, they are hoping that payroll reductions in the current quarter won't be as deep as the roughly 685,000 average monthly job losses in the January-March period.
In the best-case scenario, employment losses in the present quarter would be about half that pace, some economists said. That scenario partly assumes the economy won't be shrinking nearly as much in the present quarter.
The deterioration in the jobs market comes despite a few hopeful signs recently that the recession - now the longest since World War II - could be easing.
Orders placed with U.S. factories actually rose in February, ending a six straight months of declines, the government reported Thursday. Earlier in the week, there was better-than-expected reports on construction spending and pending home sales. And last week a report showed that consumer spending - an engine of the economy - rose in February for the second month in a row - after a half-year of declines.
But as the economic downturn eats into their sales and profits, companies are laying off workers and resorting to other cost-saving measures. Those include holding down hours, and freezing or cutting pay, to survive the storm.
Job losses were widespread last month. Construction companies cut 126,000 jobs. Factories axed 161,000. Retailers got rid of nearly 50,000. Professional and business services eliminated 133,000. Leisure and hospitality reduced employment by 40,000. Even the government cut jobs - 5,000 of them.
Education and health care were the few industries showing any job gains.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the recession could end later this year, setting the stage for a recovery next year, if the government is successful in bolstering the banking system. Banks have been clobbered by the worst housing, credit and financial crises to hit the country since the 1930s.
Even if the recession ends this year, the economy will remain frail, analysts said. Companies will have little appetite to ramp up hiring until they feel the economy is truly out of the woods and any recovery has staying power.
Given that, many economists predict the unemployment rate will hit 10 percent at the end of this year. The Fed says unemployment will remain elevated into 2011.
Economists say the job market may not get back to normal - meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate - until 2013.
"There's going to quite a long haul before you see the jobless rate head down," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.
To brace the economy, the Fed has slashed a key bank lending rate to an all-time low and has embarked on a series of radical programs to inject billions of dollars into the financial system.
And the Obama administration had launched a multi-pronged strategy to turn the economy around. Its $787 billion stimulus package includes money that will flow to states for public works projects, help them defray budget cuts, extend unemployment benefits and boost food stamp benefits.
The administration also is counting on programs to prop up financial companies and reduce home foreclosures to help turn the economy around.
Still, skittish employers announced more job layoffs this week.
3M Co. (MMM), the maker of Scotch tape, Post-It Notes and other products, said it's cutting another 1,200 jobs, or 1.5 percent of its work force, because of the global economic slump. Fewer than half the jobs will be in the U.S., but include hundreds in its home state of Minnesota. The 1,200 figure includes cuts made earlier in the first quarter.
Elsewhere, healthcare products distributor Cardinal Health Inc. (CAH) said it would eliminate 1,300 positions, or about 3 percent of its work force, and semiconductor equipment maker KLA-Tencor Corp. said it will cut about 600 jobs, or 10 percent of its employees.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
An Open Letter to President Barack Obama from Sidney J. Gluck

Professor Sidney J Gluck
Honorary Director and Advisor
Professor Emeritus
New School for Social Research
Co-President
US-China People's Friendship Association
President
Sholom Aleichem Memorial Foundation
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is an open letter to President Barack Obama.
I don't know whether you agree with my point of view or not; but I am functioning out of the feeling that the negative aspects of capitalism are becoming obvious to people all around the world regardless of class positions, that understanding its avaricious nature brings them closer to Marx's analysis of the system which all of you can read his seminal word on "Capital." Chapter 26 which deals with the law of capitalist accumulation will give you the prototype of which the USA's capitalism is the arch example of its worst (together with the British who started out but are following along with the USA).
Globalization is a mess and everyone knows that the USA has created more poverty with its capital investments than existed before the global expansion. We know that formal colonial countries are seeing through this domination and are moving in directions which reject the control of foreign capital in their own developments. WE ARE LIVING IN A CENTURY OF EPOCHAL CHANGE. Our hope is that the change which is now developing in the form of a bipolar economic structure will continue to redevelop economies technologically and sustainably. We hope too that the ultimate resolution of differences between the double-structured world economic system will not be resolved by warfare. That is the most important struggle we must be involved with. A peaceful acceptance of epochal change and the survival of all in a better world.
Sincerely,
Sidney J. Gluck
Dear President Obama,
The world economic crisis sparked by the financial sector of our country has put the capitalist system on a defensive more openly than any other time in history. I am one of many who strongly supported your candidacy based on your vocalization of much of what we felt had to be changed in our country to make it more livable for those of us who produce the wealth and intellectual atmosphere.
You are facing the sharpest attack from the ranks of the Republican Party. We all admire your diplomatic ability to deal with those who disagree with you; but, the time has come when you must take an ideological position in order to clarify the issues involved in building a new type of economic structure in the country. This means that the dominance of the financial institutions in the political decisions affecting the majority must be defended openly against misrepresentations and manipulations which we all now know come from the unsupported defense of government that gives primacy to capital accumulation whether it be finance capital or industrial capital.
You do not have to embrace socialism. That is not the ideological position that put you in power. You were put in the White House with a promise to govern in the name of the working majority. True, you would like to have support from all sections of political and economic forces, but YOU WILL NOT GET IT.
If you continue to move along supporting the program of the financial circles in our country, your presidency is DOOMED. Listen to the needs of the majority and cater to it.
You can announce openly that you are not for socialism but you are for correcting the ills of the capitalist system and to relinquish domination of other countries allowing them to move independently as their people desire.
The Republican Party is pressing for the continuation of the kind of economic distortions that has dragged the world down. Openly facing this fact will help you reshape our country’s goals.
We are in an epoch of change. We must remove barriers and encourage each nation to resolve their day to day problems created by greed and distorted wealth accumulation. It does not make you a socialist to talk for Main Street but they need a spokesman in high places that will act for them.
You are in an enviable yet complicated position. Exposing the negative effect of unregulated finance capital which dominates humanity today would memorialize you for the next thousand years. The Bush Administration preempted the first move to deal with the economic crisis by bailing out the perpetrators who squandered every cent in bonuses and bashes. You are now faced with additional steps to bail out the industrial capitalists who have the responsibility of reshaping these enterprises into a new technological and green economy whose purpose is to raise the living standards of all.
The fulfillment of your promises requires that you take an ideological position. You will go down in history as having broken the racial barrier but it will end at that if you continue to be consumed by the economic crisis. OUR SYSTEM NEEDS CHANGE. Do what you can within that system. This means openly opposing the Republican Party’s program already on the road to capturing the presidency and congress in 2010 before they bring us further down. Don’t let them bully you with the “socialist” label.
The ball is in your court to change the situation. In your most diplomatic way you must take an ideological position to correct the problems of the system as you promised and restore true democracy which favors the needs of the majority.
Sincerely,
Sidney J. Gluck
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Philippine Extra-Judicial Killings Continue, Obama's Response In Question
Guest Blog
Brian McAfee
2838 Mason Blvd.
Muskegon Heights, MI 49444
USA
Tel: (231) 737-8726
brimac6@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippine Extra-Judicial Killings Continue, Obama's Response In Question
by Brian McAfee
On March 23rd, Sabina Ariola, the leader of "Citizens for Excellence, Progress, Peace towards the Country's Great Future," was gunned down. She is the 992nd civilian to be killed in the ongoing spree of extra-judicial killings that have been occurring since 2001, when Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed the presidency. Another particularly despicable killing that occurred in March was that of Rebelyn Pitao, a 20 year old teacher in Davao, southern Philippines. She was tortured, raped, strangled and stabbed according to Alan Davis of the Philippine Human Rights Recording Project.
The apparent reason was "guilt" by association as her father is Leoncio Pitao, a leader in the local New Peoples Army contingent in Mindanao. All of these murders demand justice, but the Rebelyn Pitao case screams it. At the same time, Kaeapatan, the Philippines leading human rights organization, reports that politically motivated killings are up during the first three months of this year. Two in January, seven in February and seven more in March have occurred.
Aside from the 992 extra-judicial killings, there are 193 people who have disappeared under the Arroyo administration. In observing and following news out of the Philippines, one cannot help but be reminded of Pinochet's Chile due to the overall situation.
Amongst the targets for the slaughter, journalists and media people have been a constant target, along with clergy people, labor leaders, advocates for the poor, those challenging foreign ownership and control of Philippine mines, farmers and fishermen. Under the Arroyo administration (since 2001), a number of children have also been killed, as well as 64 journalists or media people, both men and women.
This noted, the Committee to Protect Journalists, A New York based advocate organization, ranks the Philippines 6th amongst the 14 most dangerous countries for journalists. (The rankings are 1-Iraq, 2-Sierra Leone, 3-Somalia, 4-Sri Lanka, 5-Columbia ,6-Philippines, 7-Afghanistan, 8-Nepal, 9-Russia ,10-Pakistan, 11-Mexico ,12-Bangladesh, 13-Brazil and 14-India.)
Meanwhile, the U.S. has controlled Philippine politics, its military and most of its resources since Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. At the same time, many of the individuals targeted for assassination, disappearance or harassment have been victimized solely for openly speaking out against colonialism and exploitation.
Moreover, the U.S. has indirect influence and a significant amount of control over Filipino affairs through its funding, arming and training of the Philippine military and its national police. Indeed, the U.S. has been training the Philippine military (AFP) for decades through its International Military Education and Training program or IMET and its Joint Combined Exchange Training program or JCET.
These programs have been used with some success in the "war on terror." Yet as I wrote in a report a couple of years ago [1], the U.S. war on terror in the Philippines has become a war of terror against the Philippine people. On account, I encourage Americans, Filipinos and all others of good will to voice their opinions and concerns about this grave matter. Similarly, I recommend that they demand a cessation of all military aid, training and funding by the U.S. government until Philippine and U.S. government representatives, along with independent human rights observers, can verify that Philippine civilians, all of them, are safe, free to pursue their dreams and have justice without the sorts of outrageous assaults that they, currently, confront.
Please contact:
1. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Malacanang Palace
JP Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila 1005
corres@op.gov.ph
2. President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500
comments-202-456-1111
electronic comments http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
References:
[1] "The Philippines: Where the "War on Terror" has become the War of Terror" at http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5230/.
Brian McAfee
2838 Mason Blvd.
Muskegon Heights, MI 49444
USA
Tel: (231) 737-8726
brimac6@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippine Extra-Judicial Killings Continue, Obama's Response In Question
by Brian McAfee
On March 23rd, Sabina Ariola, the leader of "Citizens for Excellence, Progress, Peace towards the Country's Great Future," was gunned down. She is the 992nd civilian to be killed in the ongoing spree of extra-judicial killings that have been occurring since 2001, when Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed the presidency. Another particularly despicable killing that occurred in March was that of Rebelyn Pitao, a 20 year old teacher in Davao, southern Philippines. She was tortured, raped, strangled and stabbed according to Alan Davis of the Philippine Human Rights Recording Project.
The apparent reason was "guilt" by association as her father is Leoncio Pitao, a leader in the local New Peoples Army contingent in Mindanao. All of these murders demand justice, but the Rebelyn Pitao case screams it. At the same time, Kaeapatan, the Philippines leading human rights organization, reports that politically motivated killings are up during the first three months of this year. Two in January, seven in February and seven more in March have occurred.
Aside from the 992 extra-judicial killings, there are 193 people who have disappeared under the Arroyo administration. In observing and following news out of the Philippines, one cannot help but be reminded of Pinochet's Chile due to the overall situation.
Amongst the targets for the slaughter, journalists and media people have been a constant target, along with clergy people, labor leaders, advocates for the poor, those challenging foreign ownership and control of Philippine mines, farmers and fishermen. Under the Arroyo administration (since 2001), a number of children have also been killed, as well as 64 journalists or media people, both men and women.
This noted, the Committee to Protect Journalists, A New York based advocate organization, ranks the Philippines 6th amongst the 14 most dangerous countries for journalists. (The rankings are 1-Iraq, 2-Sierra Leone, 3-Somalia, 4-Sri Lanka, 5-Columbia ,6-Philippines, 7-Afghanistan, 8-Nepal, 9-Russia ,10-Pakistan, 11-Mexico ,12-Bangladesh, 13-Brazil and 14-India.)
Meanwhile, the U.S. has controlled Philippine politics, its military and most of its resources since Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. At the same time, many of the individuals targeted for assassination, disappearance or harassment have been victimized solely for openly speaking out against colonialism and exploitation.
Moreover, the U.S. has indirect influence and a significant amount of control over Filipino affairs through its funding, arming and training of the Philippine military and its national police. Indeed, the U.S. has been training the Philippine military (AFP) for decades through its International Military Education and Training program or IMET and its Joint Combined Exchange Training program or JCET.
These programs have been used with some success in the "war on terror." Yet as I wrote in a report a couple of years ago [1], the U.S. war on terror in the Philippines has become a war of terror against the Philippine people. On account, I encourage Americans, Filipinos and all others of good will to voice their opinions and concerns about this grave matter. Similarly, I recommend that they demand a cessation of all military aid, training and funding by the U.S. government until Philippine and U.S. government representatives, along with independent human rights observers, can verify that Philippine civilians, all of them, are safe, free to pursue their dreams and have justice without the sorts of outrageous assaults that they, currently, confront.
Please contact:
1. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Malacanang Palace
JP Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila 1005
corres@op.gov.ph
2. President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500
comments-202-456-1111
electronic comments http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
References:
[1] "The Philippines: Where the "War on Terror" has become the War of Terror" at http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5230/.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Obama seeks input of bank CEOs on recovery plans
Today the headlines are:
Obama seeks input of bank CEOs on recovery plans...
What is needed is a massive and comprehensive "people's bailout" based on the legislation drafted by a small group of progressive Minnesota State Legislators which must become the template for national legislation.
Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers are the ones who profit from this rotten capitalist system... a system in which economic depressions are an inherent feature which cannot be avoided.
The capitalist system is a dog-eat-dog system where those at the top get richer and richer as the meanest dogs grab the most and horde the wealth created by the working class leaving us with their shit to clean up.
Big-business and the bankers created this entire mess and now the politicians they have purchased are using our tax-dollars to clean up the mess so working people are getting royally shafted with a rough, un-greased telephone pole full of slivers over and over again.
Obama says the "country 'can't afford to demonize' every profit-seeking investor or entrepreneur because that is what fuels prosperity, and is what will get banks lending and the economy moving again."
Wrong. Dead wrong. And this is why everything Obama and the Democrats are doing will make life more miserable for working people.
"Profit-seeking" does not fuel prosperity. This "profit-seeking" creates problems for working people as it robs society of the wealth needed to provide a quality life for all.
Labor creates all wealth with some very significant help from Mother Nature.
Priorities in this country under the capitalist system are all screwed up.
Obama talks about "profit-seeking" as if it is some noble endeavor; it is nothing of the kind; it is thievery plain and simple.
Any school child understands that labor cannot be continually robbed of the wealth it creates as we stand by and watch Mother Nature get raped over and over again without some very serious problems developing.
It is this insatiable greedy drive for maximum profits by these same "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" who Obama places on a pedestal to worship that are the underlying source of each and every problem we are experiencing.
What we need to do as a people is move on to stage two.
Stage one was dumping the Republicans.
Stage two... we need to move on to consolidating the movement which drove the Republicans out to driving these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" from power.
Obviously, Obama and the Democrats are seeking to protect these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" who are not entitled to any such protection from government.
These are very greedy people who would deny hungry school children free meals.
These are the "merchants of death and destruction" who profit from wars.
These are the greedy who profit from health care.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" are the very ones who have driven the auto industry into the ground.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" are the ones who want to turn every single human endeavor into a source of greater profits... they will even destroy our public school system in quest of profits if given the opportunity.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" are the military-financial-industrial complex which has spun this web of state-monopoly capitalism that is nothing more than a scheme to extract maximum super-profits.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" have demonized themselves.
The time has come to bring the working class to power in this country, this is long overdue.
We need to completely reorder the priorities of this country so we get off this track that the drive for profits is the be all and end all of everything. We need to get our country off this insane war binge that is bleeding our country dry and begin directing the resources of our country toward meeting human needs--- Profits before people must be replaced with People before profits.
Barack Obama is part of the problem of what is wrong with this country. This pompous, arrogant, self-promoting, self-serving, flim-flam man and con-artist has risen to power under the guise of claiming to be for "change" without ever being forced to say what kind of change he had in mind.
Did anyone ever want or even anticipate the kind of "change" we see in this country today? No.
These problems did not develop overnight.
The capitalist sooth-Sayers tried to keep the economic problems hidden from the people until the floor fell out from under them. And now they come along with this crap, don't demonize "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs."
Obama might have tricked some people but most of those who voted for him did so because he was the only alternative to John McCain. The election results were no mandate for this Wall Street profit orgy, nor were the election results a mandate to ramp up the drive to more wars.
Where is the democracy? We are getting neither peace nor health care.
What Barack Obama has done is help Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers to consolidate their power and the strangle-hold they had on our country at a time when the rising anger of working people was prying loose their grip, and they now are using this economic mess as a chance to re-gain a better, firmer grip around our necks--- squeezing even harder.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" of Wall Street won't be satisfied until they have squeezed the last drop of blood from our veins.
We have a choice: the undertaker can bury these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" along with their decaying capitalist system now nothing more than a parasitic, cannibalistic beast preying on anything in its path; or, the undertaker will bury us.
The time has come for the working class to carry out its historic task of burying this rotten capitalist system.
A cooperative socialist system free from these parasitical "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" is the only remedy.
Capitalism is on the skids to oblivion placing us on the road to perdition... the time has come to take the first left turn off this dangerous road.
This is not about "business practices" as Barack Obama and the Democrats would like us to believe... this is about a system based upon profits derived from the exploitation of labor and the rape of Mother Nature.
No matter how you view the problem, the capitalist system comes out the culprit.
We can do better... with socialism.
The real trick here is to build the kind of movement which can get back the wealth these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" have already stolen, prevent them from stealing even more and put that wealth towards universal social programs designed to improve the standard of living for everyone.
The foreclosures and evictions must be halted.
All student debts should be forgiven--- this will release immense purchasing power for people to begin buying what they need putting people back to work.
Massive public works programs must be undertaken to get people back to work at jobs paying real living wages creating programs of lasting value for the American people. We can do this by closing down the more than 800 U.S. foreign military bases which only serve to keep people in other countries under the thumbs of "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" and redirect the resources towards creating 800 public health care centers spread out across this country to keep people healthy and get them well when sick--- no fees, no premiums.
We can bring the failing steel and auto industries under public ownership through democratic nationalization and put people to work creating what we need for an environmentally friendly and green socialist economy.
As Minnesota State Senator David J. Tomassoni has so astutely observed as he brought forward the "Minnesota People's Bailout:" We need to work our way out of his economic mess not try to buy or spend our way out.
Very good advice for getting our country on the high road to a bright socialist future as the dark grey clouds of capitalism threaten to plunge our country--- and the world--- into deathly darkness.
It is now obvious that if working people do not act quickly there are some very powerful, extreme right-wing forces in this country just eagerly waiting to make their play for power and if they are allowed to make this grab for power we will not recognize our country the day after.
This is class war.
Working people are going to have to engage in some very quick self-educating to get up to speed on what is going down... the bankers and the bosses have been doing our thinking for us for far too long making all the decisions behind the closed doors of corporate boardrooms, and that is a big part of our problems today.
There are those who would twist the present circumstances to mean that we have some kind of duty to support Barack Obama and all these schemes he is bringing forward at Wall Street's behest in the guise of "economic stimulus" and even a perverted concept of peace that we are supposed to support that is nothing more then an acceptance of a successful imperialist occupation of another country to rob a sovereign nation and a people of their oil; nothing could be further from the truth... this is a perverted view of what democracy and government is supposed to be about.
The politicians are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.
If ever there has been a time in history for working people to take to the streets to reclaim our country and our democracy behind the calls of "power to the people," that time is now!
Alan L. Maki
Obama seeks input of bank CEOs on recovery plans...
...But when is Obama going to seek input from working people who are suffering the brunt of this depression?
What is needed is a massive and comprehensive "people's bailout" based on the legislation drafted by a small group of progressive Minnesota State Legislators which must become the template for national legislation.
Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers are the ones who profit from this rotten capitalist system... a system in which economic depressions are an inherent feature which cannot be avoided.
The capitalist system is a dog-eat-dog system where those at the top get richer and richer as the meanest dogs grab the most and horde the wealth created by the working class leaving us with their shit to clean up.
Big-business and the bankers created this entire mess and now the politicians they have purchased are using our tax-dollars to clean up the mess so working people are getting royally shafted with a rough, un-greased telephone pole full of slivers over and over again.
Obama says the "country 'can't afford to demonize' every profit-seeking investor or entrepreneur because that is what fuels prosperity, and is what will get banks lending and the economy moving again."
Wrong. Dead wrong. And this is why everything Obama and the Democrats are doing will make life more miserable for working people.
"Profit-seeking" does not fuel prosperity. This "profit-seeking" creates problems for working people as it robs society of the wealth needed to provide a quality life for all.
Labor creates all wealth with some very significant help from Mother Nature.
Priorities in this country under the capitalist system are all screwed up.
Obama talks about "profit-seeking" as if it is some noble endeavor; it is nothing of the kind; it is thievery plain and simple.
Any school child understands that labor cannot be continually robbed of the wealth it creates as we stand by and watch Mother Nature get raped over and over again without some very serious problems developing.
It is this insatiable greedy drive for maximum profits by these same "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" who Obama places on a pedestal to worship that are the underlying source of each and every problem we are experiencing.
What we need to do as a people is move on to stage two.
Stage one was dumping the Republicans.
Stage two... we need to move on to consolidating the movement which drove the Republicans out to driving these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" from power.
Obviously, Obama and the Democrats are seeking to protect these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" who are not entitled to any such protection from government.
These are very greedy people who would deny hungry school children free meals.
These are the "merchants of death and destruction" who profit from wars.
These are the greedy who profit from health care.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" are the very ones who have driven the auto industry into the ground.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" are the ones who want to turn every single human endeavor into a source of greater profits... they will even destroy our public school system in quest of profits if given the opportunity.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" are the military-financial-industrial complex which has spun this web of state-monopoly capitalism that is nothing more than a scheme to extract maximum super-profits.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" have demonized themselves.
The time has come to bring the working class to power in this country, this is long overdue.
We need to completely reorder the priorities of this country so we get off this track that the drive for profits is the be all and end all of everything. We need to get our country off this insane war binge that is bleeding our country dry and begin directing the resources of our country toward meeting human needs--- Profits before people must be replaced with People before profits.
Barack Obama is part of the problem of what is wrong with this country. This pompous, arrogant, self-promoting, self-serving, flim-flam man and con-artist has risen to power under the guise of claiming to be for "change" without ever being forced to say what kind of change he had in mind.
Did anyone ever want or even anticipate the kind of "change" we see in this country today? No.
These problems did not develop overnight.
The capitalist sooth-Sayers tried to keep the economic problems hidden from the people until the floor fell out from under them. And now they come along with this crap, don't demonize "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs."
If "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" are not responsible for the dire economic straits we are in today; who is?
Obama might have tricked some people but most of those who voted for him did so because he was the only alternative to John McCain. The election results were no mandate for this Wall Street profit orgy, nor were the election results a mandate to ramp up the drive to more wars.
If there are any two things the American people wanted from the election it was:
1. An end to these insane imperialist wars.
2. A no-fee/no-premium, not-for-profit comprehensive public health care system.
Where is the democracy? We are getting neither peace nor health care.
What Barack Obama has done is help Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers to consolidate their power and the strangle-hold they had on our country at a time when the rising anger of working people was prying loose their grip, and they now are using this economic mess as a chance to re-gain a better, firmer grip around our necks--- squeezing even harder.
These "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" of Wall Street won't be satisfied until they have squeezed the last drop of blood from our veins.
We have a choice: the undertaker can bury these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" along with their decaying capitalist system now nothing more than a parasitic, cannibalistic beast preying on anything in its path; or, the undertaker will bury us.
The time has come for the working class to carry out its historic task of burying this rotten capitalist system.
A cooperative socialist system free from these parasitical "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" is the only remedy.
Capitalism is on the skids to oblivion placing us on the road to perdition... the time has come to take the first left turn off this dangerous road.
This is not about "business practices" as Barack Obama and the Democrats would like us to believe... this is about a system based upon profits derived from the exploitation of labor and the rape of Mother Nature.
No matter how you view the problem, the capitalist system comes out the culprit.
We can do better... with socialism.
The real trick here is to build the kind of movement which can get back the wealth these "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" have already stolen, prevent them from stealing even more and put that wealth towards universal social programs designed to improve the standard of living for everyone.
The foreclosures and evictions must be halted.
All student debts should be forgiven--- this will release immense purchasing power for people to begin buying what they need putting people back to work.
Massive public works programs must be undertaken to get people back to work at jobs paying real living wages creating programs of lasting value for the American people. We can do this by closing down the more than 800 U.S. foreign military bases which only serve to keep people in other countries under the thumbs of "profit-seeking investors and entrepreneurs" and redirect the resources towards creating 800 public health care centers spread out across this country to keep people healthy and get them well when sick--- no fees, no premiums.
We can bring the failing steel and auto industries under public ownership through democratic nationalization and put people to work creating what we need for an environmentally friendly and green socialist economy.
As Minnesota State Senator David J. Tomassoni has so astutely observed as he brought forward the "Minnesota People's Bailout:" We need to work our way out of his economic mess not try to buy or spend our way out.
Very good advice for getting our country on the high road to a bright socialist future as the dark grey clouds of capitalism threaten to plunge our country--- and the world--- into deathly darkness.
It is now obvious that if working people do not act quickly there are some very powerful, extreme right-wing forces in this country just eagerly waiting to make their play for power and if they are allowed to make this grab for power we will not recognize our country the day after.
This is class war.
Working people are going to have to engage in some very quick self-educating to get up to speed on what is going down... the bankers and the bosses have been doing our thinking for us for far too long making all the decisions behind the closed doors of corporate boardrooms, and that is a big part of our problems today.
There are those who would twist the present circumstances to mean that we have some kind of duty to support Barack Obama and all these schemes he is bringing forward at Wall Street's behest in the guise of "economic stimulus" and even a perverted concept of peace that we are supposed to support that is nothing more then an acceptance of a successful imperialist occupation of another country to rob a sovereign nation and a people of their oil; nothing could be further from the truth... this is a perverted view of what democracy and government is supposed to be about.
The politicians are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.
If ever there has been a time in history for working people to take to the streets to reclaim our country and our democracy behind the calls of "power to the people," that time is now!
Alan L. Maki
Obama seeks input of bank CEOs on recovery plans
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090327/D976BR280.html
Mar 27, 7:50 AM (ET)
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama wants to hear from the chief executives of some of the country's biggest banks as he caps a week in which he clarified his overall plan for stabilizing the financial system.
The president was set to take the temperature of the bank CEOs on Friday at the White House. The session will be the latest in a series of such meetings Obama has had with financial industry representatives and business executives since taking office amid the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The meeting follows a period marked by Obama's sharp language, and public outrage, over Wall Street excesses and $165 million in employee bonuses by American International Group, the large but troubled insurance company that has taken more than $170 billion in federal bailout funds.
It also comes days before Obama attends his first international summit, a meeting in London next week of the world's 20 major and developing economies, all struggling with the global recession.
This week, the administration unveiled its program to help banks clear their balance sheets of so-called "toxic assets," bad investments that are tying up capital and making it difficult for them to lend money. The administration also outlined its proposals to impose tighter regulations on the financial sector in an effort to avoid a repeat of the industry meltdown that contributed to the recession.
Obama in recent days has dialed down his rhetoric against AIG and Wall Street. The administration needs the industry's cooperation for its financial stability and financial regulation plans to work.
White House officials said Obama likes to hear directly from those who will be affected by his decisions.
"Our future is inextricably linked to these financial institutions, and their future is linked to the economic health of the country," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama looked forward to getting an update from the bankers on the activity they are seeing in real estate and commercial loans. They also are likely to discuss "stuff that's been in the news" in the past few weeks, including executive compensation, bonuses and "the notion that ... we have to change the culture of the way Wall Street works," he said.
Asked whether Obama would deliver as tough a message in private as he has in public, Gibbs replied, "Yes."
"The president isn't going to say one thing out here and a different thing in there," he said. "We're not going to get out of this financial crisis and we're not going to stabilize our financial system without healthy banks. That's part of what he hopes to talk to them about."
Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, said the meeting will focus on a broad approach to restoring the economy.
This week, the administration announced a plan to partner with private investors, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to take over up to $1 trillion in sour mortgage securities from banks. The goal is to help jump-start lending.
The administration also has proposed tighter regulation of the financial system, including giving the government broad power to take over major financial institutions that are not banks, such as insurance companies, like AIG, and hedge funds teetering on the brink of collapse.
Last week, Obama assailed AIG for "recklessness and greed" in its business practices.
He softened his tone a bit during a nationally televised news conference Tuesday night, saying the country "can't afford to demonize" every profit-seeking investor or entrepreneur because that is what fuels prosperity, and is what will get banks lending and the economy moving again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
