Job Losses Sap Morale of Workers

[Seeker of Truth]

Posted on Tue, May. 13, 2003

Job Losses Sap Morale of Workers
By Ellen Lee
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

In his oldest son's Pleasant Hill home, Tom Flanagan occasionally curses as he walks through the halls and gathers his son Kevin's belongings: the black-and-white photos his son developed in his makeshift darkroom, the household products he had a tendency to buy in bulk, the box-loads of books on computer programming.

More than once, Flanagan shakes his head. "It's a shame," he says. "We lost a good friend and a good mind."

One month ago, Kevin Flanagan took his life in the parking lot of Bank of America's Concord Technology Center, on the afternoon after he was told he had lost his job.

It was "the straw that broke the camel's back," his father said, even though the 41-year-old software programmer suspected it was coming. He knew that his employer, Bank of America Corp., like other giant corporations weathering the economic storm, was cutting high-tech jobs. He knew that Bank of America was sending jobs overseas. He had seen his friends and coworkers leave until only he and one other person remained on the last project Flanagan worked on.

Flanagan took steps to soften the blow. He considered studying law, and even made a list of California schools he was interested in researching. He applied for other jobs at the bank, but didn't receive responses.

In e-mails to his father, Flanagan sounded lighthearted. "I'm safe!" he would write in his Friday missives. "I'm safe for another week."

But Flanagan apparently masked the depth of the distress he felt as he fought to save his position. "He felt like he was fighting a large corporation that pretty much didn't care," his father said. "This final blow was so devastating. He couldn't deal with it." The father said he saw no other signs of depression before his son's suicide.

It is unclear if Flanagan lost his job because it had been sent overseas, or because the bank was slimming down because of the tight economy. Lisa Gagnon, a Bank of America spokeswoman, declined to comment, saying, "We're deeply saddened by this tragedy. We send our prayers to his friends, colleagues and family."

But his death underscores the anxiety that has swelled among technology workers at Bank of America and elsewhere as more businesses shift high-tech jobs and responsibilities to contractors offshore even as they cut jobs in the United States.

Much more @ Contra Costa Times (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/5848767.htm)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

A sad story, but one of millions.

Congress is supposed to pass laws for the common welfare of the people of the United States, not for the profits of the corporations.

There is a swelling of anger and resentment building that these politicians dont understand.

They will destroy us by selling one manufacturingplant, one job, one family into poverty at a time.

Then what will be left?

Who will be left to buy the wonderful corporate gadgets?

Indians and Chinese.

But America will be in ruin.

I have a feeling that rope is going to be in high demand in about 5 to 10 years.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Exactly, these huge corporations that give so much money into the political campaigns don't really care about America or Americans at all. The only thing they care about is profit. The almighty dollar.

The examples with Enron and Worldcom and Global Crossing - these are all evidence that it's a big scam and the American public is the victim.

The trouble is, that even Bush and the Senate don't see how these companies get away with fleecing the American people. They even pass laws to help them get away with it, because they are so blinded by that money that get's donated.

This is just the donations from accounting firms in 2001-2002
Notice Enron's bumbling book-keepers on the list (5)

1 Ernst & Young $869,487 -- Dem. 32% | Rep. 68%
2 Deloitte & Touche $750,734 -- Dem.25% | Rep. 75%
3 KPMGLLP $709,329 -- Dem. 19% | Rep. 81%
4 PricewaterhouseCoopers $624,001 -- Dem.19% | Rep. 81%
5 Andersen $591,789 -- Dem. 30% | Rep. 70%
6 AICPA $334,332 -- Dem.26% | Rep.74%

[Keith J]

But the accounting firms do not make the decisions...and accounting firms are not the ones exporting jobs to the lowest overseas bidders.

[Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
rglencheek said:
Congress is supposed to pass laws for the common welfare of the people of the United States, not for the profits of the corporations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read the entire article and saw not one mention of any law "for the profits of the corporations", or for anyone else for that matter. Did you post in the wrong thread, or are you advocating that the federal government take over our economy and/or control of private business in America?

[ QUOTE ]
They will destroy us by selling one manufacturingplant, one job, one family into poverty at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who? Do you advocate we prevent our economy from ever changing?

[ QUOTE ]
Then what will be left?

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of bankrupt farmers if we had ever been naive enough to think we could legislate ourselves out of participating in a shifting world economy. If we had applied the same resistance theory to the manufacturing exodus a few decades ago, the IT boom would have happened in another country and we would have lots of bankrupt manfacturers now. The loss of any job is a sad thing, but the delusion that you can prevent the economy from changing by legislating it is far worse. Besides, shifts in our economic base have always preceeded boom years here before. Why resist something that reaps great benefits in the long term. And lest you try to take a "holier than thou" tack, I am an IT pro who can't find an IT job right now too. I'm just not shortsighted enough to think that the world should revolve around my own or anyone else's particular problems. Systemic losses in employment should definitely be dealt with when possible, but trying to prevent the national economy from naturally shifting in response to global and national pressures is a losing proposition no matter how you slice it. If he were alive today, Marx could confirm it.

[ QUOTE ]
aho said:
Exactly, these huge corporations that give so much money into the political campaigns don't really care about America or Americans at all. The only thing they care about is profit. The almighty dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]
A democrat, huh? Yeah, we're used to the anti-free market theories of democrats. Your eeeeeeeeevil corporation and socialist utopia theories won't get much support here.

[ QUOTE ]
The examples with Enron and Worldcom and Global Crossing - these are all evidence that it's a big scam and the American public is the victim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those two being evidence of all American corporations is about as plausible as Charles Manson and Ted Bundy being evidence that all Americans are mass murderers. Stop smoking that stuff and come back to earth please.

[ QUOTE ]
The trouble is, that even Bush and the Senate don't see how these companies get away with fleecing the American people. They even pass laws to help them get away with it, because they are so blinded by that money that get's donated.

[/ QUOTE ]
As evidenced by......................???? The trouble is people making ridiculous claims like this with no basis in fact whatsoever, merely as some pathetic attempt to garner political 'points'. You won't find too many people here gullible enough to fall for that juvenile crap.

[ QUOTE ]
This is just the donations from accounting firms in 2001-2002
Notice Enron's bumbling book-keepers on the list (5)

[/ QUOTE ]
Which means what? That corporations making political contributions are all corrupt despoilers of the American public? Puh-leeeez!!!!!!! Then again, it does make for some pretty good laughs though. Why don't you try a liberal board? Or do you like being made fun of?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Rhino - I read the entire article and saw not one mention of any law "for the profits of the corporations", or for anyone else for that matter. Did you post in the wrong thread, or are you advocating that the federal government take over our economy and/or control of private business in America?

I am advocating that the US federal government start enforcing the laws on illegal immigration and start enforcing the H1-B and L1 visa laws. That would save American jobs as they should.

I am also advocating the creation of jobs as a goal to US economic policies, as they used to be. The US government should not be structuring its economic policies simply to allow corporations to exploit foreign labor and put Americans out of work.

Do you advocate we prevent our economy from ever changing?

Positive change is fine, of course, but stripping our nation of its industry and jobs is ludicrously stupid and only advocated by ideologues and greedy corporate CEOs.

We cannot let corporations profit from strip-mining America, and slippery slope arguments that try to equate common sense protections with Communism or worse are propaganda.

A lot of bankrupt farmers if we had ever been naive enough to think we could legislate ourselves out of participating in a shifting world economy.

Fine, then lets participate like the Europeans and Japanese do AND PROTECT OUR INDUSTRY.

Why are we the only country that lets this crazy foreigh exploitation continue?

Could it be that too many foreign corporations have bought their way into influence inside our nation's capital?

If we had applied the same resistance theory to the manufacturing exodus a few decades ago, the IT boom would have happened in another country and we would have lots of bankrupt manfacturers now.

That is an unwarranted assumption that I refute in a similar way; none of that would have happened.

The loss of any job is a sad thing, but the delusion that you can prevent the economy from changing by legislating it is far worse.

Huh?

The tarriffs and protections our industry grew on from about 1810 to 1950 had no effect?

If you cant change the economy in the way you want it to by passing legislation, then why not vote for it anyway just in case it might work?

But we KNOW it DOES work. Economics are not so entangled that one cannot predict macroeconomic changes. Just as critics of NAFTA predicted the devaluation of the Peso so that MExican labor and products would way undercut AMerican labor and products, so one can predict today that if things continue the way they are now, our currency is going to implode. Then we will be both without jobs and without the cheap products, too.

This kind of 'why bother' argument is obviously wrong-headed.

Those two being evidence of all American corporations is about as plausible as Charles Manson and Ted Bundy being evidence that all Americans are mass murderers. Stop smoking that stuff and come back to earth please.

I will stop smoking that stuff when all the perps are in jail and reforms made that will prevent it.

The truth is that almost every sector of the American economy is highly vulnerable to boom-bust speculation, varying only by the degree to which honest government can regulate it.

rglencheek - The trouble is, that even Bush and the Senate don't see how these companies get away with fleecing the American people. They even pass laws to help them get away with it, because they are so blinded by that money that get's donated.

Rhino - As evidenced by......................???? The trouble is people making ridiculous claims like this with no basis in fact whatsoever, merely as some pathetic attempt to garner political 'points'. You won't find too many people here gullible enough to fall for that juvenile crap.

And ad hominem isnt going to convince anyone either, Rhino.

As to what specifics, how about federal tax breaks that lower the cost for relocating American industries overseas?

How about the nonenforcement of labor and immigration laws all to the advantage of employers?

How about the continued negotiation of treaties that break down proggressive laws meant to prevent abusive business practices?

For crying out loud, Rhino, I have posted reams of data and links over the last week alone that if you had just a smidgeon of inquisitiveness you could have found plenty to go by.

Sopunds like you just want to continue in the same failing direction, the obvious evidence be damned.

But answer this question; WHO WILL BUY WHEN WE ARE ALL FLIPPING BURGHERS AT McD's?

Without the consumer market being strong, we are going toward economic disaster. The continued destruction of the American job market, industry and tax base by exporting these things overseas and handing them over to foreign nationals within our borders is national economic suicide.

And you have to be a real hard head like your mascot to not see the obvious here. Is that why you picked it?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"But the accounting firms do not make the decisions...and accounting firms are not the ones exporting jobs to the lowest overseas bidders."

I think that's showing a general ignorance of the way businesses typically operate. It most certainly is the accountants (at any level) who decide where - and which – ‘cost saving measures’ should be enacted. And, "cost saving measures" often include the outright cutting of positions, or the exportation of those positions to overseas markets where the work can be purchased for much less.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Rhino says: "A democrat, huh?"

Save your grossly inadequate "right/left" generalizations for someone who may give a rat's a-- about such a polarized, politicized debate. I stopped reading your mindless immature drivel at this point.

Really, if that's the best you can come up to discredit my post, you need to go back to the drawing board. Stereotypes and 'ad hominem' attacks to not amount to much in a rational debate.

[Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
rglencheek said:
I am advocating that the US federal government start enforcing the laws on illegal immigration and start enforcing the H1-B and L1 visa laws. That would save American jobs as they should.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh. Well, you said something about Congress passing laws, not enforcing existing ones, and that's what threw me.

[ QUOTE ]
I am also advocating the creation of jobs as a goal to US economic policies, as they used to be. The US government should not be structuring its economic policies simply to allow corporations to exploit foreign labor and put Americans out of work.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does the government "create" jobs?

[ QUOTE ]
Positive change is fine, of course, but stripping our nation of its industry and jobs is ludicrously stupid and only advocated by ideologues and greedy corporate CEOs.

[/ QUOTE ]
And who decides what is positive? Sorry, but totalitarianism is not my desire for this country.

[ QUOTE ]
We cannot let corporations profit from strip-mining America, and slippery slope arguments that try to equate common sense protections with Communism or worse are propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice "strip-mining" sound bite. Any clue what it means? You allude to government control of the economy and job market. That is not a "slippery slope" argument, but a here and now argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, then lets participate like the Europeans and Japanese do AND PROTECT OUR INDUSTRY.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you like such governmental authoritarian power, maybe you should go there. You won't get many to agree to authoritarianism here.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are we the only country that lets this crazy foreigh exploitation continue?

Could it be that too many foreign corporations have bought their way into influence inside our nation's capital?

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you be more specific so we can understand what you mean?

[ QUOTE ]
That is an unwarranted assumption that I refute in a similar way; none of that would have happened.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you Nostrodamus. You advocate government control of the economy to prevent it from responding to market forces. And you honestly believe none of that would happen? Are you drinking?

[ QUOTE ]
Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
The notion that you can prevent the economy from changing by legislating it is a delusion, and an extremely dangerous one.

[ QUOTE ]
The tarriffs and protections our industry grew on from about 1810 to 1950 had no effect?

[/ QUOTE ]
That does not control the economy, but specific aspects of trade on individual items. You didn't advocate tariffs, but rather government control of the economy. Apples and oranges.

[ QUOTE ]
If you cant change the economy in the way you want it to by passing legislation, then why not vote for it anyway just in case it might work?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because that experiment didn't work in places like Russia, and it had disastrous results wherever it was tried.

[ QUOTE ]
But we KNOW it DOES work.

[/ QUOTE ]
If authoritarianism is your goal, then it works. Government control of an economy has never improved one.

[ QUOTE ]
Economics are not so entangled that one cannot predict macroeconomic changes.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what happened to "none of that would have happened."? Sure sounded like a prediction.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as critics of NAFTA predicted the devaluation of the Peso so that MExican labor and products would way undercut AMerican labor and products, so one can predict today that if things continue the way they are now, our currency is going to implode. Then we will be both without jobs and without the cheap products, too.

[/ QUOTE ]
One can predict it, yes. But since you already pointed out that "one cannot predict" such things, then such predictions are not to be taken seriously, are they?

[ QUOTE ]
This kind of 'why bother' argument is obviously wrong-headed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trying to solve things with a totalitarian government that have been tried numerous times in the past, and have failed miserably every time, is about as wrong headed as you can get. If you wnat to argue discarding democracy in favor of a Big Brother government, you are on the wrong web site.

[ QUOTE ]
I will stop smoking that stuff when all the perps are in jail and reforms made that will prevent it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This does not even remotely resemble what you tried to argue, or what I was rebutting, but why am I not surprised?

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that almost every sector of the American economy is highly vulnerable to boom-bust speculation, varying only by the degree to which honest government can regulate it.

[/ QUOTE ]
"honest government"? Okay Forrest.

[ QUOTE ]
And ad hominem isnt going to convince anyone either, Rhino.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither will unsubstantiated wild accusations. Besides, I don't have to convince anyone of anything. You are the one making unsupported claims and allegations. I'm just laughing at them.

[ QUOTE ]
As to what specifics, how about federal tax breaks that lower the cost for relocating American industries overseas?

How about the nonenforcement of labor and immigration laws all to the advantage of employers?

[/ QUOTE ]
You were speaking of the malfeasance of "Enron and Worldcom and Global Crossing", not overseas relocation or immigration. Nice avoidance atempt.

[ QUOTE ]
How about the continued negotiation of treaties that break down proggressive laws meant to prevent abusive business practices?

[/ QUOTE ]
And exactly what treaties did those three companies use to "fleece" someone?

[ QUOTE ]
For crying out loud, Rhino, I have posted reams of data and links over the last week alone that if you had just a smidgeon of inquisitiveness you could have found plenty to go by.

[/ QUOTE ]
I admit I don't get here as often as I'd like, but I have seen some of them. So far though, I have seen nothing to justify a government takeover of the American economy, or to indicate that all American corporations are scheming to cheat the American people out of everything they can.

[ QUOTE ]
Sopunds like you just want to continue in the same failing direction, the obvious evidence be damned.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "same failing direction, the obvious evidence be damned"? You mean like advocating a governemnt takeover of the economy as a solution when it has failed every time it has been tried, is a direct violation of the Constitution and goes against every freedom loving desire that Americans have? That kind of failing direction?

[ QUOTE ]
But answer this question; WHO WILL BUY WHEN WE ARE ALL FLIPPING BURGHERS AT McD's?

[/ QUOTE ]
And who will prosper when we become the new Soviet Union?

[ QUOTE ]
Without the consumer market being strong, we are going toward economic disaster. The continued destruction of the American job market, industry and tax base by exporting these things overseas and handing them over to foreign nationals within our borders is national economic suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, excuse me Chicken Little, but the markets have always fluctuated and adjusted to world changes. It never caused disaster before. In fact, those changes ushered in every economic boom we have ever experienced. What all of a sudden makes that suicide? And why to you think that totalitarian government is all of a sudden a success story?

[ QUOTE ]
And you have to be a real hard head like your mascot to not see the obvious here. Is that why you picked it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but not being a socialist, socialist thought does not appear obvious to me at all. But hey, do what you want.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Rhino - Well, you said something about Congress passing laws, not enforcing existing ones, and that's what threw me.

Why pass new laws if they cant/wont enforce current ones?

THEN pass more laws.

How does the government "create" jobs?

The government can create jobs a thousand ways.

Are you serious?

And who decides what is positive? Sorry, but totalitarianism is not my desire for this country.

Oh, so now you dont know the meaning of the word 'positive'?

And, sorry, but your slippery slope just slid all over the logic you were trying to use.

Try again and I will try to respond to the logic you use, ok?

Nice "strip-mining" sound bite. Any clue what it means?

Of course. Do you?

You allude to government control of the economy and job market.

The government does control many aspects of/facets ofthe economy through various means.

That is not a "slippery slope" argument, but a here and now argument.

What argument? Your stating you didnt know what the accepted meaning of 'positive' was? Was that your argument?

OR your assertion that some ambiguous/undefined level of government regulation equates to totalitarianism?

That isnt an argument, that is an absurdity.

If you like such governmental authoritarian power, maybe you should go there.

LOL, so because I want the US government to do its constitutional duty and promote the general welfare, I should just tuck tail and leave?

Sorry, no, but I am not a Republican.

You won't get many to agree to authoritarianism here.

Why would I want that?

By exagerating my claims and constructing a straw man?

Nah, that is just ignorable.

Could it be that too many foreign corporations have bought their way into influence inside our nation's capital?

Could you be more specific so we can understand what you mean?

After some changes to the law around 1971, corporate sponsored APCs have flooded capitol hill, and the delegating most of the legislative oversight to a plethora of subcommittees has been a disaster as well.

The corporations know more about what is going on in Congress and what is in each bill than the vast majority of Congressmen or even their staffers.

Thank you Nostrodamus. You advocate government control of the economy to prevent it from responding to market forces. And you honestly believe none of that would happen?

It does not require a Nostradamus to see that if the US government drops the laws that have created and maintined our industrial base (tarriffs and restrictions on exporting jobs) then we will lose that industrial base.

It also doesnt take a Nostradamus to see that the more our currency flows overseas, we are vulnerable to a roll over of American dolalrs into other currency that can drop the value of our currency. That will cause the price of imported goods to skyrocket, no?

The notion that you can prevent the economy from changing by legislating it is a delusion, and an extremely dangerous one.

Why, because you say so? The economy was created that way, Rhino!

Because that experiment didn't work in places like Russia, and it had disastrous results wherever it was tried.

You are talking about communism, and I have never suggested that; that was your straw man, not my claim.

Cant you keep your hyperbole clear from what others assert?

If authoritarianism is your goal, then it works. Government control of an economy has never improved one....

Trying to solve things with a totalitarian government that have been tried numerous times in the past, and have failed miserably every time, is about as wrong headed as you can get. If you wnat to argue discarding democracy in favor of a Big Brother government, you are on the wrong web site.

So far though, I have seen nothing to justify a government takeover of the American economy, or to indicate that all American corporations are scheming to cheat the American people out of everything they can.

You mean like advocating a governemnt takeover of the economy as a solution when it has failed every time it has been tried, is a direct violation of the Constitution and goes against every freedom loving desire that Americans have? That kind of failing direction?

And who will prosper when we become the new Soviet Union?

Sorry, but not being a socialist, socialist thought does not appear obvious to me at all. But hey, do what you want.

I have never advocated totalitarianism, only a well regulated economy, as we have always had, at least until 1995 or so.

Your implication that we can either have only a free trade economy or a communist economy is a false dichotomy that is so absurd it almost made me bust out laughing.

I thought you were a serious participant on this board, now it is apparent that you can only engage in mockery and ad hominem.

Whether you choose to face the Truth or not, the facts are clear:

1) the US economy was built on tarriffs, protected industrial heavy industry, and job protections. That is how this nations industrial might was formed, and that is how every other European and Asian economy has formed their industrial base.

We are the only industrial nation that pursues this type of economic suicide.

2) The US has been allowing so many H1-B visa holders to enter into the US, that the salaries and job demands for engineers in the majority of professions has almost entirely collapsed, as well as their salaries. The businesses that have been taking advantage of lax enforcement by the government have been screwing over the workers of this country, most often by clearly breaking the law then using their lawyers to avoid prosecution, as Tyson Foods has done.

This will further deplete the US consumer market of money and send it overseas as Vijay Brahmapoobahsa sends his cash home to mom and dad.

3) Other nations are making only token imports of American goods. The unions in Europe and the common sense of the Asian governments leads them to pay us mere lip service when our government negotiators try to get them ot open their markets. Meanwhile these countries flood us with their cheap products.

4) The chickens will come home to roost when there is more US currency overseas than here at home and the Euro starts looking better. When the Us dollar starts getting dumped, it will be thanks to the free trade idiocy that has gripped the Republican Party, likely due to simple corruption and pay off to Congressmen by corporate lobyists.

And, Rhino, it wont matter what you wanna think, or how much you decide to dive into sarcasm because the show will be over and this country will see disaster, as we will ahve huge unemployment and inflation int he 25% range.

But when you decide to drop the sarcasm and wild distortions and discuss this stuff seriously, let me know.

Meanwhile, your helping to sell your country off to foreign interests one peice at a time.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87257,00.html

[ QUOTE ]
WorldCom Inc. (search) on Monday agreed to pay a record $500 million to settle civil fraud charges over its $11 billion accounting scandal -- but the judge overseeing the case requested more details and delayed approval.

Under a tentative deal with the Securities and Exchange Commission (search), the telephone and data services company was set to pay the penalty, which would then be doled out to victims of the roughly $11 billion accounting fraud.

But U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff told lawyers for WorldCom, the SEC and creditors that he had "an inadequate basis" to approve what would be the largest U.S. civil settlement against a public company.

He requested reports from WorldCom's special investigative committee on the accounting fraud and what corporate governance and management changes the company has made in light of the scandal.

"All this must precede a determination of monetary damages," Rakoff said. He set another hearing for June 11.

Resolving the SEC charges would remove a big legal cloud over WorldCom, which filed for bankruptcy in July after being rocked by the accounting scandal and amassing some $41 billion in debt. It also faces lawsuits from shareholders whose stock has become worthless.

The settlement actually calls for WorldCom to be fined $1.51 billion, an amount that would be reduced to $500 million as part of the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rhino, here is another example of why we need government regulation. Of course, you probably see the choice as still being between this and Communism, but there is a lot of room between the two extremes.

We can have well regulated economic policies without diving into Communism! LOL!

[Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
rglencheek said:
Rhino, here is another example of why we need government regulation. Of course, you probably see the choice as still being between this and Communism, but there is a lot of room between the two extremes.

[/ QUOTE ]
You advocated a government takeover of the economy, not regulations. Big difference. The only way to prevent any economy from adapting to outside economic forces by regulation is to advance such regulation to the point of complete control. I don't think you understand economic regulation at all, or what it can and cannot do.

You also cited the use of laws and treaties by the aforementioned companies to "fleece" the American public, and that more laws were being passed to continue such "fleecing". A civil lawsuit does not explain any laws or treaties, nor how they were supposedly "fleecing" America.

[ QUOTE ]
We can have well regulated economic policies without diving into Communism! LOL!

[/ QUOTE ]
That's true, but that's not what you advocated. The control you advocate the government should have over the economy is just as totalitarian as communism, if not more so. You appear to have decent motivations, but have no clue the consequences of the actions you propose. You advocate government control, not regulation, of the economy, and then laughingly declare that calling this communism is ridiculous. You should go back and study your communism, because that is a very good description of the kind of government control you advocate. The government regulates to influence the economy and prevent wrongdoing. Trying to control the direction an economy is headed or preventing it from responding to market pressures by government edict is indeed a hallmark of totalitarianism. Your 'cure' is far worse than the disease.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

You advocated a government takeover of the economy, not regulations. Big difference.

Where did Istate anything like that?

The control you advocate the government should have over the economy is just as totalitarian as communism, if not more so....The government regulates to influence the economy and prevent wrongdoing. Trying to control the direction an economy is headed or preventing it from responding to market pressures by government edict is indeed a hallmark of totalitarianism.

I cant see where I stated anything of the sort in this thread. Are you refering to something Istated in another thread?

Let me specify what I want to see;

1) H1-B and L1 visas tied to the unemployment rate of each industry. The limits used to be around 3,000 jobs annually in 1988 when Reagan was president, so I dont hink there is any totalitarianism implied here.

2) I want to see immigration laws enforced. When a rival contractor calls in a business for using illegal labor, the owners of the illicit business should see jail time PDQ and not the complete inaction that is going on now.

3) I want to see fair trade, where a nation's imports to our contry are tied to what value our exports to their country are, dollar for dollar. We already do such things now.

4) I want to see a tarriff placed on imports to compensate our native industrys for their costs of doing business in our country; all the OSAH and EPA regs, etc. This is just to balance the costs of doing business here and not to be punative.

5) We should give a huge taxbreak to companies for employing American citizens and not just hand them tax breaks to be spent in foreign markets.

BTW, I ahve called both my Democrat Senator's offices and suggested that Bushes tax cuts may not have the same impact as prior tax cuts due to the amount of foreign investment there is now among American corporations. They seemed to really really like it, and you may start hearing it alot more in the future.

[Estragon]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, then lets participate like the Europeans and Japanese do AND PROTECT OUR INDUSTRY.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have seldom seen such an ignorant statement. Look at the Japanese and European economies, then look at ours! You obviously have no knowledge of economics, or the current facts and figures.

Of course, once we DID use protectionism as a national economic policy. The Smoot-Hawley Act precipitated an international round of retalitory trade legislation, turning a recession into a worldwide depression that led to the rise of Hitler in Germany, Roosevelt in the United States, the consolidation of communist power in Revolutionary Russia, and about two decades of misery for everyone. Yeah, that's something to emulate, all right!

[ QUOTE ]
The government can create jobs a thousand ways.

Are you serious?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, why don't you name a couple of hundred, then, just for purposes of example?

Be sure to include a full explanation of where the money comes from, and how each way provides sustainable employment.

Your statements on immigration visas for technology workers betrays an equal ignorance. We NEED these workers; companies aren't hiring them on a whim, and still must offer competitive salaries. The alternative is exporting more technology jobs.

Businesses should be free to hire the most productive workers. Every single suggestion for change you have made only "protects" a less productive worker, penalizing investors' returns, forcing them to seek better returns elsewhere. In the end, ALL a company's employees would be seeking work, when the investors have fled.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Estragon - Well, why don't you name a couple of hundred, then, just for purposes of example?

Just read any list of Federal jobs from clerical positions to forrestry positions to the millions employed by DoD. Estragon, I dont mean to be rude, but why can't yousee this simple FACT?

Estragon - Your statements on immigration visas for technology workers betrays an equal ignorance. We NEED these workers; companies aren't hiring them on a whim, and still must offer competitive salaries. The alternative is exporting more technology jobs.

Foreign workers are being hired not on a whim, but to make a faster quicker buck today for the corporate quaterly figues, no matter what the cost to everyone is over the next few years or even a decade from now.

Businesses should be free to hire the most productive workers. Every single suggestion for change you have made only "protects" a less productive worker, penalizing investors' returns, forcing them to seek better returns elsewhere. In the end, ALL a company's employees would be seeking work, when the investors have fled.

American workers ARE the most productive workers! The productivity of American workers today is the benchmark for worker productivity around the world as our workers add more value to a product per man hour and as a percentage of its total value.


I found this response of yours from another thread on FC:

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=164598&page=3& view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Estragon - Of course, if you are a 54-year-old factory worker with no skills, you are sh*t outta luck, and that is a shame. But the same thing happened to buggy-whip makers and blacksmiths when the automobile came along, and the Mom 'n' Pop grocery gave way to the supermarket. There were "displaced workers" then, too. They managed to survive, the nation managed to prosper, and this much of history is repeating itself.

This is the kind of calloused attitude that has long been the curse of conservatism, 'Too bad, so sad, you lost your haouse, car, and kids college, but I still gots mine so blow away!'

The Constitution says that Copngress is to make laws to promote the General welfare not corporate welfare!

When people are loosing jobs due to bad Congressional trade and economic policies it is NOT remotely comparable to jobs based technologies that have become outdated like the horse and buggy for heavens sake! There is nothing obsolete about IT jobs or accounting jobs or assembly jobs; they are simply being sold to foreign nations as our corporations dismantle this country brick by brick to sell overseas!

And before you start in calling me a communist as Wyat and Rbisrb2 and others have done, I will spell out exactly what I am proposing:

1) American corporations are shutting down production in the USA and moving to plants overseas. This shrinks the consumer market.

2) American corporations are the primary exponents of the H1-B visa program that gives American citizens a pink slip so that foreigners (who are very unlikely to get citizenship) can take those jobs, gain that technical experience, and then go home to India and start their own companies there to compete with American companies.

This too further shinks the consumer market.

3) American corporations are pusing small farmers into bankruptcy through bogus loan programs and then breaking up family farms. Again, shrinking the consumer market.

4) American corporations like Nike are blatantly exploiting foreign workers paying them substandard wages even for Third World standards. They are actively alienating entire generations of foreign labor to the benefits of 'good' capitalism.

5) Corporations ahve a long history of exploitation and abuse of American citizens when the government was not holding them accountable, and it is not at this time.

6) American corporations, like Tysons Foods, are hiring thousands of illegal workers, each, and are the consumer end of a vast illegal underground network that brings these people in by the millions each year, with no screening for diseases, criminal backgrounds, or terrorist links. This prevents us from being anywhere near being a secure nation.

7) The American dollar is already overextended with a nation in a huge debt crisis. The American dollar is due to get depreciated by a considerable amount in the not too distant future. This will cause a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a dip. Americans do not have ties to extended family in the rural aeas that can take on a few more family members till things get better. PEople will be starving in the streets.

8) The immigrants vote Dimocrat, and coupling this with the white collar workers who will stop voting Republican because they are unemployed, will give the Dimocrats a major move up in the Washington political environment.

But this was all discussed on this thread here:
http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=160594&page=7& view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1


Estragon - Look at the Japanese and European economies, then look at ours! You obviously have no knowledge of economics, or the current facts and figures.

Sure, lets do, and guess what I found?

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/8Comparison.htm

Earning power is defined as GDP per capita, or how much the average citizen earns in a year. It is an important statistic because it measures how advantageously nations trade on the global market. After the Second World War, the U.S. was number one for 40 years. But in the mid-80s, the U.S. suddenly began dropping down the list.

1991 Earning Power2

Switzerland $35,490
Japan 27,300
Sweden 26,900
Denmark 24,230
Norway 24,150
Finland 24,110
United States 22,550
Canada 20,840
Germany 19,830
Netherlands 19,310


Purchasing power, however, is a rather more accurate measure of standard of living. It shows how much each country pays to buy the same item, say, a loaf of bread. With its large, diverse and well-functioning market, the U.S. has generally enjoyed the lowest real prices in the industrialized world. But, as the chart below shows, it is also true that the purchasing power of other nations has been growing more rapidly than the U.S.' For this reason we should also look at each nation's percentage of the US purchasing power in 1970, and again in 1991.3

Purchasing Percent of Percent of
Power, 1991 US, 1970 US, 1991
United States $22,204 -- --
Germany 19,500 75% 88
Canada 19,178 72 86
Japan 19,107 57 86
Denmark 17,621 71 79
Norway 16,904 54 76
Sweden 16,729 77 75
Netherlands 16,530 72 74
Finland 15,997 58 72
The third measure is individual worker productivity. The following chart shows how other nations have been catching up to the U.S. over the decades:

Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%)

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990
United States 100% 100 100 100 100
Canada 77.1 80.1 84.2 92.8 95.5
Italy 30.8 43.9 66.4 80.9 85.5
France 36.8 46.0 61.7 80.1 85.3
Germany 32.4 49.1 61.8 77.4 81.1
United Kingdom 53.9 54.3 58.0 65.9 71.9
Japan 15.2 23.2 45.7 62.6 70.7


Where We Stand publishes an index of economic prosperity that takes into account all the following factors: productivity, salaries, equitable wealth distribution, luxury-goods consumption, trading strength, poverty, personal and national indebtedness, inflation control, business strength and credit-worthiness. And the best-off nations are:

Germany 1382
Japan 1363
Switzerland 1332
Canada 1216
United States 1178
Netherlands 1087
Sweden 1079
Norway 1061
United Kingdom 1049
Denmark 920
Finland 910
But let's break down these broad comparisons into their components. Perhaps the most appropriate statistic to begin with is home ownership, the central part of the American Dream: (More)

Home ownership:

Ireland 82% Japan 60
Spain 80 Portugal 59
Luxembourg 77 United States 59
Norway 73 Finland 58
Belgium 72 Sweden 55
Greece 72 France 54
Italy 68 Netherlands 46
United Kingdom 67 Germany 40
Canada 64 Switzerland 29
Denmark 60
America's decline in home ownership is symbolic of a larger erosion in living standards, which Americans have met in two ways. The first is that America has gone deeply into debt to maintain its lifestyle. The second is that families have been able to hold ground only because wives have joined their husbands in the work force. (Note: this is a comment on the difficulty of making ends meet, not on working women!) Europe and Japan suffer much less from either of these problems:

Percent of families earning two paychecks:

United States 58%
Japan 33
France 33
Italy 20
Germany 18
Netherlands 16

Average Household Debt

United States $71,500
United Kingdom 35,500
Germany 27,700
France 27,650
Netherlands 5,000
Switzerland 800

Average Household Savings

Japan $45,118
Switzerland 19,971
Denmark 18,405
France 17,649
Germany 17,042
Norway 15,196
Netherlands 14,282
Finland 12,387
Sweden 10,943
United Kingdom 7,451
United States 4,201

Percent of income spent on credit cards:

United Kingdom 12%
United States 10
France 8
Japan 4
Switzerland 3
Netherlands 2
Germany 2

Government debt per person:

Belgium $16,423
Japan 14,049
United States 12,433
Sweden 9,541
Netherlands 9,368
Canada 8,597
Norway 5,498
United Kingdom 4,635
Finland 2,798
Germany 977

Trade Balance (millions):

Japan +$77,110
Germany +76,713
Netherlands +7,990
Canada +5,047
Norway +3,769
Denmark +2,426
Finland -250
United Kingdom -37,958
United States -113,240

Current Account Balance (millions):

Japan +$56,783
Germany +55,477
Netherlands +6,962
Norway +226
Denmark -1,402
Finland -4,895
Canada -16,593
United Kingdom -34,065
United States -105,900

Investment (percent of GDP):

Japan 30.6%
Norway 28.8
Switzerland 26.6
Finland 24.8
Canada 22.0
Netherlands 21.4
Germany 19.9
Sweden 19.7
United Kingdom 19.2
Denmark 18.0
United States 17.1

INCOME INEQUALITY
As mentioned earlier, America has the greatest inequality of income and wealth in the industrialized world:

Inequality of income (0 = most equal society, 100 = the least equal):

United States 99
Canada 83
Netherlands 82
Switzerland 79
United Kingdom 78
Germany 66
Norway 60
Sweden 60

Average CEO's pay as a multiple of an average
worker's pay:

United States 17.5 (More)
United Kingdom 12.4
Japan 11.6
Canada 9.6
France 8.9
Germany 6.5

Percent of Union Membership in Workforce:

Sweden 85.3%
United Kingdom 41.5
Canada 34.6
Germany 33.8
Japan 26.8
Netherlands 25.0
United States 16.4

Size of Middle Class (More):

Japan 90.0%
Sweden 79.0
Norway 73.4
Germany 70.1
Switzerland 67.2
Netherlands 62.5
Canada 58.5
United Kingdom 58.5
United States 53.7

Poverty level (More):

United States 17.1%
Canada 12.6
United Kingdom 9.7
Switzerland 8.5
Germany 5.6
Sweden 5.3
Norway 5.2

Children under the poverty level:

United States 22.4%
Canada 15.5
United Kingdom 9.3
Switzerland 7.8
Sweden 5.0
Germany 4.9
Norway 4.8

Deaths from malnutrition (per million):

Men Women
United States 7 13
France 4 9
Canada 5 7
Japan 2 1
United Kingdom 1 2
Norway 0 1

Head Start (percent of age group enrolled in preschool)

2-year olds 3-year olds 4-year olds
France 35.7% 96.3 100
Norway 22.8 31.6 44.1
Finland 20.2 16.0 19.6
Germany 9.1 32.3 71.6
United Kingdom 1.3 25.9 69.2
United States 0.0 28.9 49.0

Estragon - Of course, once we DID use protectionism as a national economic policy. The Smoot-Hawley Act precipitated an international round of retalitory trade legislation, turning a recession into a worldwide depression that led to the rise of Hitler in Germany, Roosevelt in the United States, the consolidation of communist power in Revolutionary Russia, and about two decades of misery for everyone. Yeah, that's something to emulate, all right!

From the same website I quote above:

[ QUOTE ]
The causes of the Great Depression are hotly disputed by scholars even to this day. No one knows the ultimate reason why the economy started plunging downhill in 1929. However, several things are certain:
There was a variety of things wrong with the economy going into 1929, and they had been deteriorating throughout the decade.
The conservative economic policies of the 1920s -- low taxes, little regulation, lack of anti-trust enforcement -- did nothing to stop the August recession and the October stock market crash.
Hoover kept the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply while bank panics and billions in lost deposits were contracting it. The Fed's inaction was the reason why the initial recession turned into a prolonged depression.
The economy continually sank throughout Hoover's entire term. Under Roosevelt's New Deal, it rose five out of seven years.
Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had a minor impact because trade formed only 6 percent of the U.S. economy, and reducing trade gave Americans only that much more money to spend domestically. Hoover's other attempts at government intervention came mostly during his last year in office, when the Depression was already at its depth.
The first nations to come out of the Great Depression -- Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and then everyone else -- did so after they adopted the Keynesian solution of heavy deficit government spending.
Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world's economies in the six decades that have followed....

The Roaring Twenties were an era dominated by Republican presidents: Warren Harding (1920-1923), Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Under their conservative economic philosophy of laissez-faire ("leave it alone"), markets were allowed to operate without government interference. Taxes and regulation were slashed dramatically, monopolies were allowed to form, and inequality of wealth and income reached record levels. The country was on the conservative's preferred gold standard, and the Federal Reserve was not allowed to significantly change the money supply.

The fact that the Great Depression began in 1929, then, on the Republicans' watch, is a great embarrassment to conservative economists. Many try to blame the worsening of the Depression on Hoover, for supposedly betraying the laissez-faire ideology. As the time line in the next section will show, however, almost all of Hoover's government action occurred during his last year in office, long after the worst of the Depression had hit. In fact, he was voted out of office for doing "too little too late." The only notable exception to his earlier idleness was the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, whose minor impact we shall explore in more detail later on.

But much more importantly, the economy was clearly turning downward even before Hoover took office in 1929. Entire sectors of the economy were depressed throughout the decade, like agriculture, energy and mining. Even the two industries with the most spectacular growth -- construction and automobile manufacturing -- were contracting in the year before the stock market crash of 1929. About 600 banks a year were failing. Half the American people lived at or below the minimum subsistence level. By the time the stock market crashed, there was a major glut of goods on the market, with inventories three times their normal size.

The fact that all this occurred even before the first act of government intervention is a major refutation of laissez-faire ideology. (More)

TIMELINE OF GENERAL EVENTS

1920s (Decade)

During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.
An average of 600 banks fail each year.
Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually decline.
The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.
Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.
"Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.
Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.
By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.
By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.
The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.
Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.
1922
The conservative Supreme Court strikes down federal child labor legislation.
1923
President Warren Harding dies in office; his administration was easily one of the most corrupt in American history. Calvin Coolidge, who is squeaky clean by comparison, becomes president. Coolidge is no less committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government. He announces to the American people: "The business of America is business."
Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of Columbia.
1924
The Ku Klux Klan reaches the height of its influence in America: by the end of the year it will claim 9 million members. It will decline drastically in 1925, however, after financial and moral scandals rock its leadership.
The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.
1925
The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I.
Supreme Court rules that trade organizations do not violate anti-trust laws as long as some competition survives.
1928
The construction boom is over.
Farmers' share of the national income has dropped from 15 to 9 percent since 1920.
Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of stocks will rise 40 percent. Trading will mushroom from 2-3 million shares per day to over 5 million. The boom is largely artificial.
1929
Herbert Hoover becomes President. Hoover is a staunch individualist but not as committed to laissez-faire ideology as Coolidge.
More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.
Annual per-capita income is $750; for farm people, it is only $273.
Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the year before. Public consumption markedly down.
Freight carloads and manufacturing fall.
Automobile sales decline by a third in the nine months before the crash.
Construction down $2 billion since 1926.
Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal income at 5 percent.
Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29 "Black Tuesday." Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an astronomical sum in those days.
Congress passes Agricultural Marketing Act to support farmers until they can get back on their feet.
1930
By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from 6 to 4 percent. Expands the money supply with a major purchase of U.S. securities. However, for the next year and a half, the Fed will add very little money to the shrinking economy. (At no time will it actually pull money out of the system.) Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself out: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate… values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less-competent people." (More)
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no longer investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside. The consensus of modern economists is that the tariff made only a minor contribution to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe. (More)
The first bank panic occurs later this year; a public run on banks results in a wave of bankruptcies. Bank failures and deposit losses are responsible for the contracting money supply.
Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how negligible.
Democrats gain in Congressional elections, but still do not have a majority.
The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931
No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
A second banking panic occurs in the spring.
The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.
1932
This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.
Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.
10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total.
About $2 billion in deposits have been lost since 1929.
Money supply has contracted 31 percent since 1929.
GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.
Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
Capital growth investments have dropped from $16.2 billion to 1/3 of one billion since 1929.
Farm prices have fallen 53 percent since 1929.
International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.
The Fed makes its first major expansion of the money supply since February 1930.
Congress creates the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. (More)
Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932. (More)
Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late. Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election. Democrats win control of Congress.
At his Democratic presidential nomination, Roosevelt says: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."
1933
Roosevelt inaugurated; begins "First 100 Days" of intensive legislative activity. (More)
A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a Bank Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on banks.
Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress. (More)
Congress authorizes creation of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration, the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority. (More)
Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Truth-in-Securities Act. (More)
U.S. goes off the gold standard.
Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is obsessed with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes' advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1934
Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission. (More)
Congress passes the Securities and Exchange Act and the Trade Agreement Act. (More)
The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.
Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending. (More)
1935
The Supreme Court declares the National Recovery Administration to be unconstitutional.
Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification Administration. (More)
Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act. (More)
Economic recovery continues: the GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and unemployment falls to 20.1 percent.
1936
The Supreme Court declares part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to be unconstitutional.
In response, Congress passes the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. (More)
Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
Germany becomes the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, through heavy deficit spending in preparation for war.
1937
The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board to be unconstitutional.
Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme Court. This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.
Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.
1938
Congress passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Fair Labor Standards Act. (More)
No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to Roosevelt's weakened political power.
The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5 percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
Britain becomes the third nation to recover as it begins deficit spending in preparation for war.
1939
GNP rises 7.9 percent; unemployment falls to 17.2 percent.
The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to 1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities.
World War II starts with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
1945
Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower. Deficit spending has resulted in a national debt 123 percent the size of the GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the $4.7 trillion national debt will be only 70 percent of the GDP!
The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it has ever known.
ECONOMIC TIMELINE

The following timeline shows the order of economic events during the Great Depression. Notice the effect that deficit spending had on economic growth:

Receipts: Tax receipts as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product

Spending: Federal spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product

GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product

Unemp.: Unemployment rate

Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
-------------------------------------------------
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins
1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May
1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
1940 6.9 9.9
1941 7.7 12.1
1942 10.3 24.8
1943 13.7 44.8
1944 21.7 45.3
1945 21.3 43.7
As you can see, Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth during his so-called "Seven Fat Years!") When 1936 saw a phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the deficit spending, overly worried about balancing the budget. But this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession, as the above chart shows.

I have been unable to find reliable economic growth figures from World War II, but as a generalization it is safe to say the economy exploded, experiencing it’s greatest growth in U.S. history. Between 1940 and 1945, the GDP nearly doubled in size, from $832 billion to $1,559 billion in constant 87 dollars. And this occurred as deficit spending soared, to levels Keynes had earlier and unsuccessfully recommended to Roosevelt.


[/ QUOTE ]


Estragon, the facts are clear that a free market that is unregulated is simply chaos and the only reason that anyone is falling for this rape and strip mining of our nations industry is that it takes time to see the full effects.

But in the near future, maybe 5 to 10 years, we will start seeing the results of this idiocy called free trade. And it will hand power to the Democrats for the next four decades once again!

[hdmundt]

You've made your usual valiant effort to explain why making the U.S. economy dependent upon foreign labor (and money) is a mistake. Eventually, it will not be a U.S. economy. Those who view economics and trade only through the prism of the 90s microchip boom will be just as miserable as the rest of us if and when our ecomony consists of 300 million people trying to do each other's nails.

You are absolutely correct in suggesting that we must recognize and protect U.S. sovereignty. I'm afraid that this has been ignored, with respect to trade policy, for so long that drastic, across-the-board measures constitute the only cure for the present, misguided policy. (I don't see the standing Congress being courageous enough, or bright enough, to do what is needed -- it is difficult enough to get them to address anything in increments other than baby-steps).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

hdmundt, I think we will have to have disasters to wake us up to what we have done to our security, industry and national defense capabilities.

So much of this ignorance that continues our suicide is willfull. People just refuse to believe the worst if they can avoid it, and so they do their best.

But ever since our dollar was taken off the gold standard, it has been floating on the common faith that people around the world have in it. This faith is about to burst when it becomes very apparent to everyone that we cannot make anything anymore that no one else can. We no longer dominate any market; computers and IT software was the last big bang,and we are giving it away to Russia, India and China.

The free trade posters here are typical of the lot. They make big claims, then retreat to asking for copious doucmentation, and then when they get that they retreat to ad hominem and sweeping unwarranted denial.

But the USA is still the best and greatest hope of mankind.

There is no substitute for a free people.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

LOL, so some moderator has buried this thread in the financials!

Heheh, I guess someone got tired of seeing free traders get kicked in the statistical keister.