Capitalism can't solve the unemployment crisis
Jerry Okamura
They can tell their story in such a convincing manner, that unless you knew
what was wrong with the premise of what they were writing, you would tend to
believe everything they say as the truth the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, But the truth is, it is anything but the truth. Is is more like
fiction.
"Prisoner #6" <Pris...@gamebox.net> wrote in message
news:Ds3%b.16$mA3....@news.uswest.net...
> Capitalism can't solve the unemployment crisis
> By Milt Neidenberg
>
> Once again the grandmaster of spin, Federal Reserve Chair Alan
> Greenspan, has woven a tale of robust recovery and good times for all.
> Testifying before two Congressional committees in mid-February, he
> assured them--and the broader spectrum of financiers and corporate
> CEOs--that the Fed was bullish on the economy, but warned in economic
> double talk of growing budget deficits. It was a blissful presentation,
> a combination of strong growth, falling unemployment and low inflation.
>
> His remarks soothed the nerves of volatile stock markets. The Dow Jones
> Industrial Average jumped more than 123 points on the first day of
> Greenspan's report to Congress, to close at its highest level in more
> than two and a half years.
>
> For the Bush administration, whose ratings have sharply dropped, it was
> a joyous moment. The loss of nearly 3 million jobs on George Bush's
> watch, along with a whopping budget deficit, wars in Iraq and
> Afghanistan that are going badly, and a giveaway tax policy for the rich
> have all contributed to his shrinking support.
>
> Greenspan's comments gave the Bush administration an additional boost
> when it was reported that the Fed "would continue to fuel the economy
> with cheap money up through the elections in November." (New York Times,
> Feb. 12)
>
> It confirmed the fact that the Fed--the bankers' bank, a mouthpiece for
> the giant banks and big business--is more than a manipulator of monetary
> policies. It is political to the core and about as independent as any of
> the politicians who serve the interests of monopoly capitalism.
>
> In this case, the Fed is in lockstep with the Bush administration.
> Greenspan refused to attack the Bush plan to make permanent the tax cut
> for the rich and agreed with him that the export of jobs--service
> oriented and multi-skilled--helps the economy's overall performance.
> Most significant, the Fed chairperson went along with the outlandish
> pre-election claim by the Bush economic team that they will create aroun
> d 2.7 million jobs in the coming fiscal year.
>
> "Greenspan Predicts Job Growth Will Soon Begin to Accelerate," heralded
> the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 12. The article stated that "it is
> possible that the unemployment rate could drop close to 4 percent from
> 5.7 percent."
>
> It's all smoke and mirrors
>
> However, after a report that there was a net gain of only 112,000 new
> jobs in January, after a minuscule 1,000 in December (later revised to
> 16,000), Morgan Stanley market economist William Sullivan commented,
> "The level of job creation is well under expectations and certainly
> disappointing for the 26th month of an alleged economic recovery."
>
> Dominic Konstam, head of interest-rate strategy of Credit Suisse First
> Boston, which recently merged with the Bank of America, expressed a
> similar sentiment. "The number was very disappointing ... . We're not
> getting the jobs to replace the stimulus [in the economy], which will
> fade once the first quarter passes."
>
> Ken Mayland, president of Clear View Economics, pointed to "Employers
> who are working their workers longer hours instead of hiring more bodies
> ... . This economy under normal circumstances should be generating
> 200,000 to 300,000 a month in new jobs." (Wall Street Journal, Feb. 6)
>
> According to a column by Bob Herbert in New York Times of Feb. 16, while
> the administration predicted that 5.5 million jobs would be created in
> the 18 months from July 2003 to the end of this year, only 296,000 have
> been created in the seven months that have passed so far.
>
> So why is there no job growth of any significance? What happened to the
> idea that an expansion of the economy, a falling dollar, and other
> economic fundamentals automatically motivate employers to hire workers?
> They're making more profits, but does this translate into job creation?
>
> The manufacturing sector has cut jobs for 42 months in a row, despite
> the fact that the Fed has kept interest rates at 1 percent, the lowest
> in 45 years.
>
> The crisis lies embedded in the capitalist system. Boom cycles are
> getting shorter in duration. The one lasting from 2002 to 2004 has been
> jobless.
>
> Capitalism can't exist without an army of the unemployed. It has always
> been a powerful weapon against the working class, exerting pressure on
> the employed sectors to keep wages down in order to raise profits.
> Corporate America has reaped the spoils of a technological revolution,
> enabling it to raise the productivity level and cut labor costs without
> significant hiring.
>
> Around 25 percent of U.S. productive capacity is idle. A similar
> phenomenon has displaced millions of production workers around the
> globe. Greenspan is well aware of this but covers it up with ill-founded
> optimism on job creation, based on a recent slowdown in the rate of
> increase in productivity. He believes employers will begin to hire
> big-time based on growing demand for goods and services here and abroad,
> thanks to the falling dollar and 1 percent interest rate on borrowing.
>
> Forewarned is forearmed
>
> The U.S. trade deficit has reached nearly $500 billion, the largest in
> history. Consumer confidence plunged in early February.
>
> The prognosis of leading capitalist analysts and economists is not
> whether, but when, a crash is coming. Many are already drawing parallels
> to the stock market crashes of 1929 and 1987, which came after the stock
> markets reached record levels. Just as Greenspan is now painting his
> pastel picture of an upsurge, so optimism reigned supreme then.
>
> For example, the prevailing mood on Wall Street just one month before
> the greatest and longest crash in modern history was expressed in a Wall
> Street Journal article on Sept. 4, 1929: "Many are looking for technical
> corrective reactions from time to time, but do not expect these to
> disturb the upward trend for any prolonged period." The market was
> already starting to turn down then. The Dow Jones did not return to the
> level of Sept. 3, 1929, until November 1954.
>
> Similarly, in 1987, the stock markets had been in a bull market for
> years. New highs were taken for granted. When the stock market began to
> drop, most analysts called it a correction. It took David
> Rockefeller--Mr. Capitalist--on Oct. 29 and 30, 12 days after the crash,
> to go on CNN and call it "a stock market crash of the dimensions of
> 1929."
>
> In the March 2000 stock market crash, declines of 49 percent in the
> Standard and Poor's 500 stock index, and 78 percent in the Nasdaq
> high-tech market, wiped out small investors to the tune of $8 trillion.
> Millions of jobs were lost, plants closed and household income shrank
> dramatically. Before the crash, Greenspan had identified the developing
> crisis as merely "irrational exuberance." Stock prices did not stop
> falling until October 2002.
>
> There are now striking similarities to the boom of the roaring 1920s.
> The deep decline that followed in the early 1930s was only overcome by
> massive military spending begun in preparation for World War II. Today,
> hyper-speculation, a revolution in technology, a currency crisis and a
> surge in productivity have reduced the incentive to invest and rehire
> workers from the vast army of unemployed.
>
> The 1930s led to the greatest working-class upsurge in modern times in
> the U.S. Militant sit-down strikes spread across the country. Unemployed
> councils organized mass mobilizations of the jobless throughout most
> cities. They raised the popular slogan, job is a property right." They
> won progressive legislation.
>
> It's time for the workers and the oppressed to review this page in
> history.
>
>
> --
> Thank you, Be seeing you.
> In the Village.
> #6
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/2004
>
>
BlackWater
>
>There are now striking similarities to the boom of the roaring 1920s.
>The deep decline that followed in the early 1930s was only overcome by
>massive military spending begun in preparation for World War II. Today,
>hyper-speculation, a revolution in technology, a currency crisis and a
>surge in productivity have reduced the incentive to invest and rehire
>workers from the vast army of unemployed.
>
>The 1930s led to the greatest working-class upsurge in modern times in
>the U.S. Militant sit-down strikes spread across the country. Unemployed
>councils organized mass mobilizations of the jobless throughout most
>cities. They raised the popular slogan, job is a property right." They
>won progressive legislation.
>
>It's time for the workers and the oppressed to review this page in
>history.
Maybe they should read the next page as well.
The ONLY reason we were able to dig ourselves
out of the massive war-spending hole was because
we were lucky enough to be the only remaining
undamaged industrial power at the end of the
war. If you wanted stuff, you bought it from
the USA. In just a few years we were overflowing
with cash.
We enjoy no such advantage now. Phoney-balony
make-work jobs won't make things better. All
they will do is bankrupt our business sector,
drive up prices and make the USA the LAST place
anybody would want to buy things from. Our
old customers now have CHOICES ... lots of
choices.
"Progressive" eh ? As in "progress towards doom" ...
Randy Cox
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:U56%b.7379$qc4....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I just love the talent of writers. Even those who are not fiction
writers.
> They can tell their story in such a convincing manner, that unless you
knew
> what was wrong with the premise of what they were writing, you would tend
to
> believe everything they say as the truth the whole truth, and nothing but
> the truth, But the truth is, it is anything but the truth. Is is more
like
> fiction.
>
So how do you feel about editorial writers that make definitive judgments,
without a stitch of logic or reasoning to back it up.
What kind of person would say, "Oh, look at that judgment, firm and
unwavering, I think I'll accept that in lieu of thinking for myself?"
Randy R. Cox