Is the US determined to recreate the Great Depression?
Kelly Eugene
interesting. Want to know what the last period was that the Senate,
Congress, and the Presidency were all controlled by the Republicans?
1921 - 1933.
What's more, we're seeing practically the same bad decisions being
made by this President that were made by the likes of Harding and
Coolidge. Namely, huge tax breaks for the rich, trade protectionism,
industrial deregulation, and last but not least, a refusal to move
against what is one of the most powerful monopolies in US history.
Add this all together, and you come up with massive income inequity,
which most respected economists agree was the root cause of the Great
Depression. For example, in Canada, a recent study concluded that
while most people saw a modest wage increase over the course of the
90's, the rich did very well. As a result, the upper 10% of Canadian
income earners now control 32-34% of the income. This actually isn't
too bad, considering that in America, the upper 10% control two-thirds
of the income, with half of that going to the upper 1% of wage
earners.
If that isn't enough to convince you that US wealth is becoming overly
concentrated, consider this - Bill Gates owns more stock than all the
black people in America put together. And despite the fact that
Microsoft has been convicted twice of anti-competitive practices, the
Justice Department has been effectively called off the case, handing
out what amounts to little more than a slap of the wrist. And
Microsoft will probably appeal for a rubber ruler.
And let's not forget the massive debt piling up as a result of massive
deficit spending, a time bomb even the Depression-era Republicans
never thought of.
This current recession, IMHO, is nothing compared to what's coming.
Already, the overall economy seems almost dependent upon the whims of
the stock market, guaranteeing future instabilty even if the current
recession is brought under control.
The good news is that it took eight years of Republican dominance to
run the economy into the ground the last time. The bad news is they
may have gotten a head start, given the eight-year Republican run in
the Senate and the Congress, with a President that often seemed far
more conservative than Democrat. Let us not forget that the flood of
deregulation produced by Congress and the Senate since 1994 has
resulted in an energy crisis in California, and a plague of corporate
scandals.
And to top it off, the US dollar is showing signs of going into
freefall. Having seen the results in Asia and Mexico, I can't imagine
this is going to help matters.
I guess the only question is, are we going to have a "roaring
twenties" first? Or have we already had it? And can Canada survive a
US economic catastrophe? Ordinarily I would say not, but our current
performance suggests that we may have finally succeeded in detaching
ourselves from our Southern neighbor. Under the current
circumstances, I'd say that last bit is very good news indeed.
"Ask me whether the glass is half full or half empty,
and I will ask you how it can be half full without
being half empty at the same time"
Kelly Eugene
Arved Sandstrom
news:3ed1ac37...@news.netidea.com...
> I was doing a bit of checking around, and I found something
> interesting. Want to know what the last period was that the Senate,
> Congress, and the Presidency were all controlled by the Republicans?
>
> 1921 - 1933.
>
> What's more, we're seeing practically the same bad decisions being
> made by this President that were made by the likes of Harding and
> Coolidge. Namely, huge tax breaks for the rich, trade protectionism,
> industrial deregulation, and last but not least, a refusal to move
> against what is one of the most powerful monopolies in US history.
You might want to add in job outsourcing at an increasing pace. A large
percentage of the US IT industry will be gone by 2010, due to companies
sending jobs offshore - that $2500/yr or $5000/yr programmer in Rumania or
India looks mighty good. Only problem is, 2/3 of the US economy is driven by
consumer spending - exactly how does this make sense, to lower the incomes
of US workers? The Bush tax cuts don't even come close to redressing the
wage drain.
> Add this all together, and you come up with massive income inequity,
> which most respected economists agree was the root cause of the Great
> Depression. For example, in Canada, a recent study concluded that
> while most people saw a modest wage increase over the course of the
> 90's, the rich did very well. As a result, the upper 10% of Canadian
> income earners now control 32-34% of the income. This actually isn't
> too bad, considering that in America, the upper 10% control two-thirds
> of the income, with half of that going to the upper 1% of wage
> earners.
Massive income inequities eventually lead to mass civil unrest. After all, a
primary motive for the American Revolution was taxation without
representation. They don't have increasing numbers of gated communities and
a burgeoning armoured limousine industry in the US because the rich are
feeling safe.
> If that isn't enough to convince you that US wealth is becoming overly
> concentrated, consider this - Bill Gates owns more stock than all the
> black people in America put together. And despite the fact that
> Microsoft has been convicted twice of anti-competitive practices, the
> Justice Department has been effectively called off the case, handing
> out what amounts to little more than a slap of the wrist. And
> Microsoft will probably appeal for a rubber ruler.
>
> And let's not forget the massive debt piling up as a result of massive
> deficit spending, a time bomb even the Depression-era Republicans
> never thought of.
Yep. I would not want to be the average American taxpayer right now. They
like to mock us Canadians for how much of our taxes are going into debt
payments - don't call the kettle black if you're a pot.
> This current recession, IMHO, is nothing compared to what's coming.
> Already, the overall economy seems almost dependent upon the whims of
> the stock market, guaranteeing future instabilty even if the current
> recession is brought under control.
>
> The good news is that it took eight years of Republican dominance to
> run the economy into the ground the last time. The bad news is they
> may have gotten a head start, given the eight-year Republican run in
> the Senate and the Congress, with a President that often seemed far
> more conservative than Democrat. Let us not forget that the flood of
> deregulation produced by Congress and the Senate since 1994 has
> resulted in an energy crisis in California, and a plague of corporate
> scandals.
>
> And to top it off, the US dollar is showing signs of going into
> freefall. Having seen the results in Asia and Mexico, I can't imagine
> this is going to help matters.
>
> I guess the only question is, are we going to have a "roaring
> twenties" first? Or have we already had it? And can Canada survive a
> US economic catastrophe? Ordinarily I would say not, but our current
> performance suggests that we may have finally succeeded in detaching
> ourselves from our Southern neighbor. Under the current
> circumstances, I'd say that last bit is very good news indeed.
We need to develop new trading partners, is all. The US has shown its true
colours and become very vindictive. I'd say the first matter on the table is
to aggressively seek out friendlier trading partners. NAFTA is a joke at
this point.
AHS
Kelly Eugene
<asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>"Kelly Eugene" <s...@netidea.com> wrote in message
>news:3ed1ac37...@news.netidea.com...
>> I was doing a bit of checking around, and I found something
>> interesting. Want to know what the last period was that the Senate,
>> Congress, and the Presidency were all controlled by the Republicans?
>>
>> 1921 - 1933.
>>
>> What's more, we're seeing practically the same bad decisions being
>> made by this President that were made by the likes of Harding and
>> Coolidge. Namely, huge tax breaks for the rich, trade protectionism,
>> industrial deregulation, and last but not least, a refusal to move
>> against what is one of the most powerful monopolies in US history.
>
>You might want to add in job outsourcing at an increasing pace. A large
>percentage of the US IT industry will be gone by 2010, due to companies
>sending jobs offshore - that $2500/yr or $5000/yr programmer in Rumania or
>India looks mighty good. Only problem is, 2/3 of the US economy is driven by
>consumer spending - exactly how does this make sense, to lower the incomes
>of US workers? The Bush tax cuts don't even come close to redressing the
>wage drain.
>
Good point. Reminds me of the downsizing madness in the early 90's.
I wonder how many companies managed to downsize themselves to death?
>> Add this all together, and you come up with massive income inequity,
>> which most respected economists agree was the root cause of the Great
>> Depression. For example, in Canada, a recent study concluded that
>> while most people saw a modest wage increase over the course of the
>> 90's, the rich did very well. As a result, the upper 10% of Canadian
>> income earners now control 32-34% of the income. This actually isn't
>> too bad, considering that in America, the upper 10% control two-thirds
>> of the income, with half of that going to the upper 1% of wage
>> earners.
>
>Massive income inequities eventually lead to mass civil unrest. After all, a
>primary motive for the American Revolution was taxation without
>representation. They don't have increasing numbers of gated communities and
>a burgeoning armoured limousine industry in the US because the rich are
>feeling safe.
>
I'll go one further. I sincerely believe that democracy cannot
survive in such an environment. Check out Saddam Hussein's palace if
you want a prime example. Forget Gates, this guy must have been the
richest man in the world before he got the boot.
I think that's only half the battle. I think we have to strengthen
domestic industries instead of relying so much on trade. No sense in
exporting lumber then importing furniture.
>
>AHS