You Are Expendable: That's Called High Productivity
Yesterday the annual release of the Economic Report of the President held no suprises. Everything is rosey, if you're rich.
The Economic Report robustly defended the importance of openness to trade and the benefits of properly managed immigration.
It defended the Bush capital gains and dividend tax cuts, arguing that lower taxation of capital spurred greater investment and ultimately higher productivity, with a shorter discussion of the benefits of income tax cuts in encouraging people to invest in skills.
The White House said it expected workers' share of output to rise from its relatively low level of 56.7 per cent of gross domestic product, to 57.8 per cent by 2012.
But it acknowledged a long-term trend towards "growing disparity [or inequality] in compensation and wages".
Ed Lazear, chairman of the CEA, said this would probably be driven by technological change. He said the recent relatively sluggish growth in wages of the average American might be because of demographic factors, with a bulge in the number of workers who completed high-school education but did not go on to higher education.
Shame on you if you're not rich, you have failed the economy. Mr. Lazear also was interestingly candid in another moment, admitting that a high productivity figure was an indication of increased economic activity's being absorbed by a stagnant figure of workers. In laymen's terms, more work, no pay hike, for the worker.
Most of that growth deceleration is a business cycle phenomenon. So what happens when you come out of a recession, at the first stage of recovery, you tend to get very high rates of productivity growth, because you're getting more output with the same amount of labor. You have slack labor on hand, you can get additional output, so it shows up as very high productivity growth as part of the initial part of a business cycle recovery. [emphases added]
A strong economy is something the cretin in chief will continue to claim. That strong economy doesn't extend to the majority of its participants. That strong economy means those with large amounts of capital to invest can take advantage of the weak position of the U.S. working public to increase the amount of work they're given without increasing the amount they're paid, and those who don't like it can be replaced. Easily replaced.
The attitude of this government toward the working public is dismissive. Its attitude toward advancing economies elsewhere is sycophantic.
Many economists argue that more decisive action is needed to turn the tide of rising imports and start chipping away at massive global trade imbalances.
University of Maryland professor Peter Morici, former chief economist at the US International Trade Commission, said the United States should treat China's undervalued exchange rate as a subsidy and apply countervailing duty laws.
"We have talked to the Chinese; we have cajoled the Chinese; we have courted the Chinese; we have scolded the Chinese," Morici said.
"We have conducted diplomacy in every conceivable dimension and they're just not moving at any kind of pace that will resolve this problem before the next millennium.
Needless to say, the equipping of India with nuclear generating capacity while India refuses to allow inspection of all of its nuclear facilities is remarkably altruistic of the White House. It is also not the usual amount of care given to nuclear agreements.
The wink wink level of operations in this administration is not in the interests of the public. It does not even pretend to try advancing the internal well-being of this government. Our leaders are unashamedly promoting the robbing of the poor to give to the rich, and depending on those rich to keep them in power.
The Economic Report robustly defended the importance of openness to trade and the benefits of properly managed immigration.
It defended the Bush capital gains and dividend tax cuts, arguing that lower taxation of capital spurred greater investment and ultimately higher productivity, with a shorter discussion of the benefits of income tax cuts in encouraging people to invest in skills.
The White House said it expected workers' share of output to rise from its relatively low level of 56.7 per cent of gross domestic product, to 57.8 per cent by 2012.
But it acknowledged a long-term trend towards "growing disparity [or inequality] in compensation and wages".
Ed Lazear, chairman of the CEA, said this would probably be driven by technological change. He said the recent relatively sluggish growth in wages of the average American might be because of demographic factors, with a bulge in the number of workers who completed high-school education but did not go on to higher education.
Shame on you if you're not rich, you have failed the economy. Mr. Lazear also was interestingly candid in another moment, admitting that a high productivity figure was an indication of increased economic activity's being absorbed by a stagnant figure of workers. In laymen's terms, more work, no pay hike, for the worker.
Most of that growth deceleration is a business cycle phenomenon. So what happens when you come out of a recession, at the first stage of recovery, you tend to get very high rates of productivity growth, because you're getting more output with the same amount of labor. You have slack labor on hand, you can get additional output, so it shows up as very high productivity growth as part of the initial part of a business cycle recovery. [emphases added]
A strong economy is something the cretin in chief will continue to claim. That strong economy doesn't extend to the majority of its participants. That strong economy means those with large amounts of capital to invest can take advantage of the weak position of the U.S. working public to increase the amount of work they're given without increasing the amount they're paid, and those who don't like it can be replaced. Easily replaced.
The attitude of this government toward the working public is dismissive. Its attitude toward advancing economies elsewhere is sycophantic.
Many economists argue that more decisive action is needed to turn the tide of rising imports and start chipping away at massive global trade imbalances.
University of Maryland professor Peter Morici, former chief economist at the US International Trade Commission, said the United States should treat China's undervalued exchange rate as a subsidy and apply countervailing duty laws.
"We have talked to the Chinese; we have cajoled the Chinese; we have courted the Chinese; we have scolded the Chinese," Morici said.
"We have conducted diplomacy in every conceivable dimension and they're just not moving at any kind of pace that will resolve this problem before the next millennium.
Needless to say, the equipping of India with nuclear generating capacity while India refuses to allow inspection of all of its nuclear facilities is remarkably altruistic of the White House. It is also not the usual amount of care given to nuclear agreements.
The wink wink level of operations in this administration is not in the interests of the public. It does not even pretend to try advancing the internal well-being of this government. Our leaders are unashamedly promoting the robbing of the poor to give to the rich, and depending on those rich to keep them in power.
Labels: Budget; Economy, Foreign Policy, Oversight
posted by Ruth at 2:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home