Subscribe: Comments on: Extreme Predictions 2012
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/extreme-predictions-2012.html/feed
Preview: Comments on: Extreme Predictions 2012

Comments on: Extreme Predictions 2012



Fearless commentary on finance, economics, politics and power



Last Build Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:32:44 +0000

 



By: Grant Waterman

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:44:30 +0000

Not to hijack this thread, but I'm searching for a attorney in Clovis and I don't know who is good and who is not has anyone heard of this Clovis attorney? They're based out of Clovis, near my home I can't find reviews on them -- Clovis Attorneys, 403 Woodwroth Ave., Clovis, CA 93612 - (559) 492-6529



By: proximity1

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:34:55 +0000

Lame excuses for failures--and failures which, at the same time, refuse all admission of responsibility. Your dodges amount to: "Mistakes were made." ' "S*#}" happens.' In that case, your case fails and so do your "arguments"--if they can be called that. This is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtK_YsVInw8



By: proximity1

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:28:44 +0000

RE:
Lafayette says: January 3, 2012 at 2:49 pm (citing my remark) "First, it undertook the massive exportation of manufacturing investment to the now-familiar third-world nations in which, since, growth, both in absolute and in relative terms, exploded." and, you reply : "This remark fails to acknowledge why this movement offshore was necessary. "The American consumer would not have bought the same article, produced in the US, because it was more expensive. Facing such a consumer decision, what is a company to do? "It saves the furniture from the fire, that is, it protects its distribution and sales systems by exporting production elsewhere. One can call that “un-American” all they want, but business has absolutely no choice in the matter."
There is in fact an aspect I omitted to make clear; allow me to do that now in reply to your comment. The actual reason this massive disinvestment in U.S. manufacturing was "necessary" is quite important. It has two parts: in the first, what we see is the dismemberment of labor's bargaining capacity. This eliminated a counter-balance to corporate management's ability to take ever-larger shares of profits rather than, as previously had been done, sharing them out (only just a bit) more responsibly and equitably with employees whose labor helped produce them. With this, the share of wealth at the very top made tremendous multiple advances as has been seen and remarked so much since the most recent market collapse. While average wages remained stagnant or fell, the income which management re-direceted to itself and to measures designed in short-term strategies to boost share prices, was an enormous wealth transfer to the top of the pyramid. But that meant that average incomes couldn't continue to buy manufactured goods. What then? Simple: expand consumer credit, so that, in effect, the wealth transfer to the top needn't be acutely seen and felt to be just that, a huge transfer to the most fortunate. It's in this that the meaning of "papering over" comes in. What actually took place was, in retrospect, an amazing series of nonsensical strategy: Average U.S. incomes and wages are suppressed; management disinvest in U.S. manufacturing, sending money and employment to cheap third-world nations; there, the massive outputs of cheap merchandise is exported to the U.S. where consumers buy cheap goods with their diminishing incomes. And guess what? There's an ultimate limit to how long such a scheme can run. Eventually, the average U.S. worker (and the growing unemployed, since the jobs were exported,) can no longer afford even the cheap crap made in China. The life is wrung out of the U.S. domestic consumption base for the benefit of relative short-term profits, re-driected to the investment class at the top. That is now where we are. And think about the next inevitable step: the collapse of China's export consumer markert, the U.S. When China's factories can no longer sell to the exhausted, bankrupt U.S. consumer, what happens then? Another, much bigger bubble bursts with fall-out that swamps anything we've seen so far. So, I'm glad you made your comment. I needed to add this to the picture offered above. P.



By: Lafayette

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:19:44 +0000

I jettison nothing. You refuse to see the reality of market economics. That's really too bad. But no reason to bitch-in-a-blog. For half a century post-war, American multinationals provided a sizable number of jobs for Americans and everybody was pleased as punch, thinking it would go forever. Nothing is forever. And if Global Finance went off the deep end, it was due to lax market oversight that allowed homegrown Real-estate and Finance Sectors to "create and securitizee Toxic Waste" to the world. Key Finance Industry oversight agencies (the Fed, the SEC) were asleep at the wheel. An existing law, the Truth in Lending Act (of 1968) was ignored and never enforced. In the first above, nobody cared where the jobs came from just as long as they paid a decent wage. In the latter, we elected Dubya and his BigMoney cronies, who neutered the oversight agencies. And who elected these dunces? "We have met the enemy and he is us."(Pogo by Walt Kelly) Let's grow up as a nation. It’s never too late.



By: Fiver

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 23:52:08 +0000

You jettison a globalization regime designed to benefit global finance and multinational corporations at the expense of everything else, that's what.



By: Lafayette

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:49:57 +0000

First, it undertook the massive exportation of manufacturing investment to the now-familiar third-world nations in which, since, growth, both in absolute and in relative terms, exploded.
This remark fails to acknowledge why this movement offshore was necessary. The American consumer would not have bought the same article, produced in the US, because it was more expensive. Facing such a consumer decision, what is a company to do? It saves the furniture from the fire, that is, it protects its distribution and sales systems by exporting production elsewhere. One can call that "un-American" all they want, but business has absolutely no choice in the matter. Americans do not give a damn about products "Made In America if they are much more expensive. They want absolutely the most bang for their buck. Which is what off-shoring does for them. So, the fault ultimately is whose? Corporate Top Management or the American Consumer?



By: proximity1

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:10:39 +0000

(amended, corrected, version of the above; site editors, I invite you to delete the fomer version, if possible.) This is a VERY IMPORTANT insight; it echoes what I've been reading recently, most notably in an essay by Jean-Marie Harribey in November issue of Le Monde Diplomatique Accesible soon at the periodical's home website: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/10/HARRIBEY/21079 . I encourage everyone to read and re-read this comment, copy-paste-and-print-it, then, put it somewhere where you'll see it frequently:
"We’ve had a very successful three decade effort to break the bargaining power of labor, and covered that up with rising consumer debt levels. That paradigm is over, but no one in authority seems willing to go back to an economic model where rising worker wages drive economic growth. Until we get policies that address that issue, I don’t see a reason to be expect robust growth levels."
That summarizes neatly the gist of the issue. Over those three decades, as corporate profits (in particular U.S. based profits in manufacturing) fell, and as the financialization of the economy made quarterly returns the be-all-and-end-all of measuring progress and success, private business took two obvious and short-term "easy-ways-out". First, it undertook the massive exportation of manufacturing investment to the now-familiar third-world nations in which, since, growth, both in absolute and in relative terms, exploded. (That is where the "record profits" which followed in the years since came from.) Second, there was, as noted, a huge growth in U.S. consumer debt. This was the "safety valve" to which business and finance resorted. Without it, falling real wages (that is, purchasing power) and in many cases even absolute wage declines, should have produced a catastrophic (from the point of view of the "growth-is-all" schools of capitalist economics) drop off in consumption demand, consumer spending. That, in turn, and in perhaps rather short order, should have (at least it may have been feared) produced a very dangerous social "pressure-cooker" as more and more people, even with full-time employment, lost ground and were driven to the wall of desperation.



By: proximity1

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:08:18 +0000

this is a VERY IMPORTANT insight; it echos what I've been reading recently, most notably in an essay by Jean-Marie Harribey in November issue of Le Monde Diplomatique Accesible soon at the periodical's home website: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/10/HARRIBEY/21079. I encourage eveyone to read and re-read this comment, copy-paste-and-print-it, then, put it somewhere where you'll see it frequently:
"We’ve had a very successful three decade effort to break the bargaining power of labor, and covered that up with rising consumer debt levels. That paradigm is over, but no one in authority seems willing to go back to an economic model where rising worker wages drive economic growth. Until we get policies that address that issue, I don’t see a reason to be expect robust growth levels."
That summarizes neatly the gist of the issue. Over those three decades, as corporate profits (in particular U.S. based profits in manufacturing) fell, and as the financialization of the economy made quarterly returns the be-all-and-end-all of measuring progress and success, private business took two obvious and short-term "easy-ways-out". First, it undertook the massive exportation of manufacturing investment to the now-familiar third-world nations in which, since, growth, both in absolute and in relative terms, exploded. (That is where the "record profits" which followed in the years since came from.) Second, there was, as noted, a huge growth in U.S. consumer debt. This was the "safety valve" to which business and finance resorted. Without it, falling real wages (that is, purchasing power) and in many cases even absolute wage declines, should have produced a catastrophic (from the point of view of the "growth-is-all" schools of capitalist economics) drop off in consumption demand, consumer spending. That, in turn, and in perhaps rather short order, should have (at least it may have been feared) produced a very dangerous social "pressure-cooker" as more and more people, even with full-time employment, lost ground and were driven to the wall of desperation.



By: Nathanael

Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:49:09 +0000

There is no case in which full health care coverage has been provided without the government taking over the entire payment system. Which, amazingly, the US has not done, because of private insurance company interests. :sigh: Also, Kenneth Arrow published a paper in the 1970s explaining why the market NEVER exerts ANY downward pressure on cost in the health care industry. Read it. In contrast, Britain's government-run NHS exerts massive downward pressure on cost (for good or ill). As for education, it has never successfully been provided on a large scale except by government. Perhaps because private interests get little profit from educating the masses, and much more from lying to htem? (Not that government has always been honest, the high school history curriculum is bunk, but at least the science curriculum is honest.) There are things which are done best by private industry, such as manufacturing. Education is not one of 'em.



By: Nathanael

Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:43:58 +0000

Wow. He is more pessimistic than I am. I think we'll avoid war with Iran.