Re: Bush......worst ever?

Gunner wrote:
On 27 Mar 2006 15:21:48 -0800, jpsmith123@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On 27 Mar 2006 03:30:31 -0800, jpsmith123@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

In a way, Bush may be the best thing for America: He's doing more to
bring down the abominable American Empire than any foreign enemy could
hope to do.

Which Empire are you refering to? Microsoft?

The American Empire, obviously.


Really? Our distant colonies and satrappies are where again?

You don't really *expect* a 21st century Empire to look exactly like a
19th century empire, do you?


At the rate he's going, in three more years, what's left of the
American economy will be gone, the imperial armed forces will be in
ruins, America will have no credibility left at all, and will probably
have few if any remaining client states and/or political allies. (And
hopefully, when the American Empire dies, then so too will the Zionist
parasite infecting it).

Odd..we appear to be on an economic rising tide.

Appearances can be deceiving.

Indeed. I had you pegged for a semi normal human being. Pity I was in
error.

I would think by now that you and "error" are rather good friends :).


Whats left of the
Clinton economy appears to have turned around and is doing quite well.
Growing with one of the lowest unemployment rates in history, with a
very good GDP and states are now thinking of how to spend all their
surplus tax dollars.

Here's a brief summary of the Bush economy, by Paul Craig Roberts,
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan
administration, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal
editorial page, and Contributing Editor of National Review.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03102005.html

"The February payroll jobs figures released last Friday by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics show a continuation of America's descent into a
third world service economy.

The Bush administration cheered the creation of 229,000 private sector
jobs (which still leaves Bush with a net private sector job loss during
his reign). However, once we look at the details, the joy vanishes:
174,000 of the jobs, or 76% of the total, are in nontradable services.

Administrative and waste services (largely temporary help and
employment services) account for 61,000 or 35% of the new service jobs.
The remainder are accounted for by construction (30,000), retail trade
(30,000), healthcare and social assistance (27,000), and waitresses and
bar tenders (27,000).

The US has apparently lost the ability to create high productivity,
high value-added jobs in tradable goods and services. The ladders of
upward mobility are being dismantled by offshore production for home
markets and outsourcing of knowledge jobs.


Odd..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/26/AR2006032600878.html


There's really nothing "odd" about it, your article notwithstanding...


The BLS reports that the number of employed US technical workers has
fallen by 221,000 in six major computer and engineering job
classifications during 2000-2004. The largest drops were suffered by
computer programmers, followed by electrical and electronics engineers,
computer scientists and systems analysts.

Of course. And where are all the skilled buggy whip and harness makers
these days?

I really don't know. Apparently most of them are now part of the
low-wage service economy.


So much for the new economy that economists promised would take the
place of the lost manufacturing economy.

It has.

Btw..we still are the most productive manufacturing nation on the
planet..and we are still the largest exporter of manufactured goods in
the world.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, and what qualifications might
apply, what apparently matters most in the scheme of things is the
balance of trade.


We work smarter, with fewer employees than any other nation on the
planet and yet outproduce every other nation.

Citations in support, please. One problem here is definitions of terms
and details.
To the extent it's true that the U.S. "outproduces every other nation"
in some sense, that may be merely because U.S. capitalists generally
refuse to manufacture any kind of labor intensive product at all, for
example. I don't know how meaningful it is.


Did I mention I work in the Manufacturing industry as a high tech
service tech?

I don't think anyone is saying that there are no more manufacturing
jobs in the U.S. If you have such a job, and it's paying a livable
wage, good for you; you're one of the lucky ones.
For each person who has such a job, there are many more on the outside
looking in, and that's the problem.


America's remaining job market is domestic nontradable services. While
India and China develop first world job markets, the US labor market
takes on the characteristics of a third world work force. Only jobs
that cannot be outsourced are growing.

When you done need crank turners to manufacture widgets..the crank
turner jobs go to economies where crank turning is still profitable.

Or more likely, when capitalists decide that a moderately higher profit
in their pocket is more important than the overall economic well-being
of their country and the workers who've been with them for 20 years.


The Bush economy has seen a loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, a
rise in the unemployment rate of 1.2 percentage points, and a
stagnation in real weekly earnings.

See above.

See above.


How bad will things have to get before economists realize that
outsourced jobs are not being replaced? Indeed, many American companies
are ceasing to have any presence in the US except for a sales force.

Most of those outsourced jobs are dying on the vine in those turd
world nations as well..they are simply not needed anymore.

I'm sure some of them are. The question is how many, and what if
anything are they being replaced with? I think you've hit upon the
essence of what constitutes a good economy vs. a not so good economy.


In the 1960s..Boeing had huge factories with thousands of men and
women running manual machine tools. Lets say a shift of 300 would
turn out 3000 parts a day.

Enter high speed machining centers.

In 2006..Boeing has huge factories that only have a few high tech
machining centers with 10 operators that turn out 6000 parts a day.

Oh oh..we had a net loss of 290 jobs. But we doubled production.

Well, I would guess that production improvements have been occuring
regularly ever since the industrial age began. In a properly
functioning economy (e.g., one not being completely sold out by the
ruling elite), the job loss rate and the job creation rate are probably
in some kind of
generally acceptable equilibrium. Apparently that's no longer the case,
at least in the U.S.


Now I ask you again..where did all those highly skilled buggy whip and
harness makers go? Farriers? Street cleaners whose sole job was to
sweep up horse manure from our city streets. Where did they go?

I don't know. I don't claim to be an economist. I do know that real
wages are going down and that it's getting harder and harder to find a
job that pays a livable wage. And I don't think that's even debatable.


The smart ones..kept abreast of emerging technologies..say..the
gasoline engine..and became mechanics and well drillers and went to
work for Ford Motor Co.

The dumb ones..well...shrug.

Cisco's CEO, John Chambers, declared recently: "What we're trying to do
is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company."

Cisco is establishing a new R&D center in Shanghai. The US corporation
manufactures $5 billion of products in China where it employes 10,000
people.

Ayup..and those 10,000 people earn yearly the equivelent of one shifts
bennies package in a single small factory in the US.

Perhaps, but one important question is, does Cisco really need to do
this to survive?


Are you suggesting we force manditory cuts on US workers benifits and
wages so they can be competative with $5 a week turd world employees?

If anything, I'm suggesting that we need real leaders in this country,
people who understand that patriotism is not being willing to be
deceived into losing your life in some far away place in order to
advance some narrow imperial agenda.

Patriotism isn't just for poor people. Patriotism might be being
willing to accept a slightly lower return on your investment in order
to keep your country's economy viable by maintaining the technology and
skilled labor force in your own country.


That is just one company, and there are many doing the same thing. The
result is abandonment of the American work force by American
corporations. Little wonder the Bush administration is the first
administration in 70 years to have a net loss of private sector jobs.

Actually..that occured in Clintons administration, but thats the world
economy growing. Shrug

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to blame Bush for something
that obviously began years ago. But it's on his watch that the problem
is seen to be getting much worse, and that's where real leadership is
required, and it's not been forthcoming. How can someone be a leader
for example, if he refuses to even acknowledge unfavorable news?

For that matter, I can't blame Bush for global warming, either, but
unfortunately for him, it's during his tenure that it's become no
longer possible to credibly deny what's happening. In
fact, I admit I didn't want to believe it myself until recently. But
the data of just the last few years indisputably shows what's
happening, and the consequences are potentially devastating.

It's time to be a real leader and address some of the real problems.
Bombing hapless peasants in some far away land into oblivion and
wearing flight suits in front of a camera
while proclaming "mission accomplished" and other stupid nonsense is
not leadership.


If one US company or a few move offshore, their profits improve and
consumer prices are lower. However, when work in general moves
offshore, American lose the incomes associated with the production of
the goods they consume. Domestic production is turned into imports,
with the result that America draws down its accumulated wealth in order
to pay for the imports on which it is dependent.


Yes indeed. So what do you suggest? Keeping the Turd World down on the
farm and unable to compete in manufacturing?

First, I suggest "doing no harm", which would require him to stop, for
example, borrowing hundreds of billions from China and wasting it on
two hopeless wars, thereby increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic
dollar sell-off. Second, U.S. rulers need to try to find some kind of a
balance. But again, that requires leadership. Pandering to corporate
lobbyists and campaign contributors isn't going to do it.


The dollar's value and status as reserve currency cannot forever stand
the trade and budget deficits that are now part and parcel of America's
economic policy.

Unless there are major changes soon, America's economic future is a
third world work force with a banana democracy's worthless currency".

That about sums it up.


Since it's clearly not just Bush but the whole corrupt American
plutocracy that's at fault, I say give Bush all the rope he needs to
finish the job.


I see you bitching..but Where oh where is your proposal to change
things?

Well as I've already pointed out, the first thing to do is to not do
additional damage. And if Bush et al. would at least try to, say, bring
spending under control, that would at least be a start. But
unfortunately I see nothing but reckless indifference. Let's face it,
completely lacking of leadership as we are, no proposal means anything.


Say..you arent a buggy whip maker..are you?

I used to be. Now I've been forced to retire.

.

Relevant Pages

  • How to rule the world after Bush
    ... Picture January 20, 2009, the day George W Bush has to vacate the Oval ... self-proclaimed "uniter" polarized not only American society, ... Clinton years and the imperial globalization of Bush - deserve ... The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (just ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • How to rule the world after Bush
    ... Picture January 20, 2009, the day George W Bush has to vacate the Oval ... self-proclaimed "uniter" polarized not only American society, ... Clinton years and the imperial globalization of Bush - deserve ... The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (just ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Impeach em all!
    ... As they are now going to pork more money into GMAC to hell bailout ... failing economy of debt and corruption. ... Saving a few jobs? ... Bush initially didn't want to have any part of using public taxes to ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: nbc: What is the Democrats plan?
    ... >>actually deliver on the promises Bush made, for a start, except the ... > performance of the country has been since Bush's supply-side tax cuts ... Yet even that recent progress on jobs belies the overall awful record since ... federal debt since 2001 can be found in the economy. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Text of President-elect Barack Obamas speech on the US economy
    ... Text of President-elect Barack Obama's speech on the economy ... '...The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan won't just throw money ... Nearly 2 million jobs have been now lost. ...
    (soc.culture.cambodia)