Keith, perhaps you should have had the wonderful Mexican meal I had tonight
across from Lincoln Center after a beautiful day.   We walked to the plaza
and observed the free Carmen from the Met to a packed plaza, then walked
over to a great book store soon to be gone to be taken the place by a cheap
clothing store (ah capitalism) , but still the new Lincoln Center is
beautiful and everyone including the police are smiling.     

I call my friends in Oklahoma and tell them about it and let them hear some
of the music.     They escape their homes to a boat on the lake or a hike, I
go listen to the very music that I left Picher to hear and perform.
Saturday after a great meal at the atrium across from Lincoln Center we
walked past the Lincoln Center Plaza and Turandot was playing with a great
cast to the audience.    A  video on a huge screen of a performance last
year but still wonderful.    My teacher Eva Turner was the second lady to
sing the role ever and did so for Toscanini at LaScala.      She sent me out
into the world hearing Turandot and yesterday the circle completed as I
remembered weeping in my back room in Picher as the last chorus filled the
house and the outdoors with magnificent chords bouncing off the chat piles.


Yesterday, Sunday,  I went to a great country western singer's mourning
party for his deceased wife who last year sang the labor day party with him.
His friends came and filled the stage in his backyard to barbeque and his
daughter singing Patsy Klein's  "Crazy" beautifully.    More tears for me
and my 96 year old uncle in Oklahoma that I shared it with over my Iphone.
I called my relatives in Oklahoma and let them listen and wished that they
could be with me, they told they loved me and wished they could as well.


It seems to me that the tea baggers  are familiar.     I've known their
simplicities before and I didn't like them then either.      They are my age
and were the hippies who threw the only copy of a grad student's  PhD thesis
out of the hall window at Columbia University, because they could.   They
were the people in the dirty speech movement at Berkeley all in the 1960s.
They grew up and went to work and now are having a last hurrah as tea
baggers but still using the same methods and the same anti-social message as
at Hubert Humprey's convention in the 1960s that gave the election to
Richard Nixon.   They didn't give a shit then and they still don't.    

The person they call a socialist, Barack Obama is no more a socialist than
Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower,  Jack Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey.     He is
no more a socialist than my father was and he wasn't.    I hate these people
with a passion that borders on violence.   They have been trash from the
beginning when they murdered people over drugs and went to jail and had
their minds changed forever by LSD.    Their children are a mess, their
lives are a wreck and now they choose to blow it all up again.     Trash in,
trash out.    They killed my hometown, almost killed me if it hadn't been
for the government veterans hospital system.    They are the scum of the
earth and they need to suffer as our parents did and they will given what
they have started.    It will be worse unless they can get some poor fool to
attack the country and start world war III. 

REH



From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9:17 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION; Ray Harrell
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: [TriumphOfContent] How to End the Great
Recession (Robert Reich - The NY Times)

The only figures I've seen say that Americans, like Western Europeans, are
not replenishing themselves.

KSH

At 14:16 06/09/2010 -0400, you wrote:

Perhaps you didnt get the message over here.   The fundamentalists are
voting with their penis.    They are having babies likes rabbits.   They
arent wealthy and single moms and baby momas with three and four
grandparents not connected by legal marriage is becoming common.    My
sister had four kids (shes a Cherokee Baptist) Everyone of her children have
had four kids.   They are happy as can be.   They are also fiercely against
abortion.    Its the liberals who arent having children or whose children
are gay and not having children.   

 

REH

 

From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 2:27 AM
To: Ray Harrell
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: [TriumphOfContent] How to End the Great
Recession (Robert Reich - The NY Times)

 

Ray,

At 21:28 05/09/2010 -0400, you wrote:


What you are saying Keith is that you guys were all serfs 200 years ago or
royalty. 


Hyperbole apart, yes. 


  Do you really believe such a comparison is acceptable today?   I believe
you would have a communist revolution if the average person was faced with
Royalty or Communism.     There has to be a third way that includes everyone
including the rest of the life on the planet. 


The third way is exactly what is happening. People are already voting in
their bedrooms. Without immigration, all Western nations are in population
decline and, in the way of exponential curves, it will become steeper and
steeper within a century.


     When we lose species and suffer extinctions the entire system is
endangered.   Its time for the west to discover more than just a little
responsibility in the world.  Theyve had a 500 year party and that is quite
long enough.


Every species grows and exploits what's around it to the maximum extent
possible until restraints prevent it growing further. 'Western' industrial
man is no different from Eastern man, or Hunter-gatherer man, or
Agricultural man. The paradox is that although our economic system is more
dangerous than any previous ones -- mainly due to science -- it is only the
scientists among us who can actually describe what the dangers are. The
previous two economic systems ran into the buffers (maximum possible
populations) without anybody realizing it. The problem today is that
business and banking make full use of science but we still have governments
which largely consist of lawyers who know almost nothing about science. No
wonder that big business and big banks are now straddling the world while
Western governments increasingly plunge themselves -- and most of the rest
of us -- into debt!

KSH


 

 

REH

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 2:53 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: [TriumphOfContent] How to End the Great
Recession (Robert Reich - The NY Times)

 

It's all very well for Robert Reich to say that America (and the rest of us)
need policies that generate more widely shared prosperity but the relatively
modest ones that he proposes could only produce some effect over many years.
Furthermore, they are going to need substantial public funding in the
interim. And where's the money for that going to come from? More
quantitative easing? If so, how are there any guarantees that it's not going
to end up where all the previous QE ended up -- trapped in the banks while
the property collaterals that their debtors gave them slowly get back to
normal. 

The income and wealth disparity today -- even though growing in recent years
-- is still nowhere near as great as that which obtained before the
industrial-consumer revolution got going 200 years ago. It was the
revolution itself and the vast chain of consumer goods that motivated the
masses and enabled economic growth to get going, a bodily uplift of all
classes and a relative decrease in the wealth gap. That was starting to
peter out by about the 1970s. Governments then tried to increase consumer
spending by inflation and, when that began to be dangerous, had to rein it
back. Then, by about the 1990s, American and Western governments tried the
other tack of allowing banks to create credit off their own bat -- that is,
to exceed all previous traditional banking experience and to create credit
at something like a 30:1 or 40:1 credit:reserve ratio, instead of something
more like 12:1 or 10:1.

Keith

At 06:02 05/09/2010 -0700, you wrote:

A very clear eyed analysis I think...
 
M
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Brant
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 12:02 AM
To: Steven Brant
Subject: [TriumphOfContent] How to End the Great Recession (Robert Reich -
The NY Times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html 

The New York Times
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR





How to End the Great Recession





By ROBERT B. REICH





Published: September 2, 2010






Berkeley, Calif.
Enlarge This Image
 
Alain Pilon






THIS promises to be the worst Labor Day in the memory of most Americans.
Organized labor is down to about 7 percent of the private work force.
Members of non-organized labor most of the rest of us are unemployed,
underemployed or underwater. The Labor Department reported on Friday that
just 67,000 new private-sector jobs were created in August, while at least
125,000 are needed to keep up with the growth of the potential work force.

The national economy isnt escaping the gravitational pull of the Great
Recession. None of the standard booster rockets are working: near-zero
short-term interest rates from the Fed, almost record-low borrowing costs in
the bond market, a giant stimulus package and tax credits for small
businesses that hire the long-term unemployed have all failed to do enough.

Thats because the real problem has to do with the structure of the economy,
not the business cycle. No booster rocket can work unless consumers are
able, at some point, to keep the economy moving on their own. But consumers
no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services they
produce as workers; for some time now, their means havent kept up with what
the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.

This crisis began decades ago when a new wave of technology things like
satellite communications, container ships, computers and eventually the
Internet made it cheaper for American employers to use low-wage labor abroad
or labor-replacing software here at home than to continue paying the typical
worker a middle-class wage. Even though the American economy kept growing,
hourly wages flattened. The median male worker earns less today, adjusted
for inflation, than he did 30 years ago.

But for years American families kept spending as if their incomes were
keeping pace with overall economic growth. And their spending fueled
continued growth. How did families manage this trick? First, women streamed
into the paid work force. By the late 1990s, more than 60 percent of mothers
with young children worked outside the home (in 1966, only 24 percent did).

Second, everyone put in more hours. What families didnt receive in wage
increases they made up for in work increases. By the mid-2000s, the typical
male worker was putting in roughly 100 hours more each year than two decades
before, and the typical female worker about 200 hours more.

When American families couldnt squeeze any more income out of these two
coping mechanisms, they embarked on a third: going ever deeper into debt.
This seemed painless as long as home prices were soaring. From 2002 to 2007,
American households extracted $2.3 trillion from their homes.

Eventually, of course, the debt bubble burst and with it, the last coping
mechanism. Now were left to deal with the underlying problem that weve
avoided for decades. Even if nearly everyone was employed, the vast middle
class still wouldnt have enough money to buy what the economy is capable of
producing.

Where have all the economic gains gone? Mostly to the top. The economists
Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty examined tax returns from 1913 to 2008.
They discovered an interesting pattern. In the late 1970s, the richest 1
percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nations total
income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.

Its no coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in
1928. I do not mean to suggest that such astonishing consolidations of
income at the top directly cause sharp economic declines. The connection is
more subtle.

The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of
us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy
is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs.

Whats more, the rich dont necessarily invest their earnings and savings in
the American economy; they send them anywhere around the globe where theyll
summon the highest returns sometimes thats here, but often its the Cayman
Islands, China or elsewhere. The rich also put their money into assets most
likely to attract other big investors (commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real
estate), which can become wildly inflated as a result.

Meanwhile, as the economy grows, the vast majority in the middle naturally
want to live better. Their consequent spending fuels continued growth and
creates enough jobs for almost everyone, at least for a time. But because
this situation cant be sustained, at some point 1929 and 2008 offer ready
examples the bill comes due.

This time around, policymakers had knowledge their counterparts didnt have
in 1929; they knew they could avoid immediate financial calamity by flooding
the economy with money. But, paradoxically, averting another Great
Depression-like calamity removed political pressure for more fundamental
reform. Were left instead with a long and seemingly endless Great Jobs
Recession.

THE Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one
way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the
1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures
Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime,
unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively,
the minimum wage leveled the playing field.

In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast
expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws
further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70
percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as
Americas middle class shared more of the economys gains, it was able to buy
more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid
growth and more jobs.

By contrast, little has been done since 2008 to widen the circle of
prosperity. Health-care reform is an important step forward but its not
nearly enough.

What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We
might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the
way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or
exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it
with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000.

In the longer term, Americans must be better prepared to succeed in the
global, high-tech economy. Early childhood education should be more widely
available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial
transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would
then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time
income.

Another step: workers who lose their jobs and have to settle for positions
that pay less could qualify for earnings insurancethat would pay half the
salary difference for two years; such a program would probably prove less
expensive than extended unemployment benefits.

These measures would not enlarge the budget deficit because they would be
paid for. In fact, such moves would help reduce the long-term deficits by
getting more Americans back to work and the economy growing again.

Policies that generate more widely shared prosperity lead to stronger and
more sustainable economic growth and thats good for everyone. The rich are
better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger
share of an economy thats barely moving. Thats the Labor Day lesson we
learned decades ago; until we remember it again, well be stuck in the Great
Recession.


Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, is a
professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and
the author of the forthcoming Aftershock: The Next Economy and Americas
Future.
Note:
This piece has been updated to reflect today's news.
!DSPAM:2676,4c8340a1177555417175460! 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Keith Hudson, Saltford, England 

Keith Hudson, Saltford, England 
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to