UK to Dodge Greek Fate With Tough Budget: Osborne

[elleng]

Source: nyt./reuters

The biggest threat to Britain's economy is its huge budget deficit, and an emergency budget on Tuesday will save the country from the fate of debt-stricken Greece, British finance minister George Osborne said on Sunday.

Measures expected to be included in the budget include a pay freeze for Britain's six-million-strong public sector, a bank levy and welfare benefit reform. Other plans include payroll tax breaks for new businesses and reform of public sector pensions.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/06/20/business/business-us-britain-osborne-budget.html?_r=1&hp

[lunatica]

1. I have visions of UK youth acting out just like they do during soccer games

while Tony Hayward and friends brave the ocean's waves during their yacht races. I don't see anything good coming out of more austerity and joblessness. Scenes out of Children of Men come to mind.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Wouldn't crow too much

apparently the USA's deficit is bigger than the next four in line all added together.

[bossy22]

5. nominal amount doesnt matter

what matters is relative amount; relative to GDP (defecit to GDP ratio). Remember, our economy is 7 times the size of GB, therefore to have an truly equal budget defecit, our deficit should be 7 times the nominal amount that GB's is.

The other thing is potential growth. Though the U.S. is still sluggish, we are expected to grow by a modest 3%; GB on the other hand is expected to grow a flat .4%

[dipsydoodle]

8. Ah ! But you don't allow for the fact that

You cannot fathom the immensity of the fuck I do not give.

[anigbrowl]

12. people like you are part of the problem

You don't give a fuck, you say, even though understanding the difference between nominal and relative numbers is an absolutely fundamental requirement for any discussion involving economics or math.

No, you would rather tout your ignorance as a badge of honor than get closer to the truth in order to create a better policy...and so, you encourage ignorance in others.

:puke:

[JDPriestly]

10. But our government doesn't dare tax the Wall Street bonuses to

the extent they should be taxed. Instead, our government prefers to cut Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare. The poor must pay. Never, never the rich.

[defendandprotect]

17. The rich have more leverage on them than the poor do -- !!

[dipsydoodle]

13. We've been in far worse situations in the past

whereas you are relative beginners to the problem. The point at which your level of debt overtakes your GDP has repidly been brought forward from 2019 to 2015 by which time you will probably look like Greece on steroids.

[bossy22]

18. ummm...unlike greece

we can issue our own currency and we denominate our debt in our own currency. If greece still had their own currency they wouldnt be in this mess. Plus we have an expectation of decent economic growth while greece (like the rest of europe) is going to be stagnant

and even if our debt overtakes our GDP (which isnt a forgone conclusion either) who says we can't handle that? We've handled it before and we will handle it again. If japan can handle a debt of 200% of its GDP and still seem relatively safe, im pretty sure the U.S. can handle 100% (and our demographics are better than japans)

[DFW]

2. Paul Krugman had an editorial in the NYT

He lays out just why extreme austerity measures in a time of big unemployment is just the opposite of what would cure
a recession, pointing out that FDR nearly wrecked his own economic recovery plan by trying to impose too much austerity
in 1937. Krugman's piece is worth seeking out.

[bossy22]

6. its an excellent article

IMO i think krugman is 99% correct on the deficit issues with this country- its fear mongering. Yes, we have a large deficit, and yes we should eventually reduce it but their is big danger in doing that in the near term.

[jwirr]

4. All square on the backs of the poor I would assume. That seems to

be the trend in most countries.

[bossy22]

7. but thats just how its going to be

the Europe is going to have to go through a painful devaluation (due to the euro's inflexible system). Devaluation always hurts the poor more than it does the rich; and there is nothing that you can do it about it. If you only devalue the assets of the rich the system will become unstable; therefore devaluation has to be equal accross the board.

heres the "marble example" i was taught. You have a bunch of people in a room with differing amounts of marbles ranging from 100 to 10. Now we collect one marble from each person. so now everyone has one less marble but the percentages of remaining marbles is different from each person. The person with a 100 marbles to begin with still has 99% of his marbles left; but the person with 10 to begin with only has 90%. Therefore as you can see, the person who is marble "poor" is more greatly affected than the person that is marble "rich".

Now devaluation is not 100% like this, but its very similar. In europes case, wages and assets are going to have to decrease an estimated 10% relative to other currencies. Now usually this is done by quantitative easing (printing money) but in the eurozone case, they are goingto actually have to physically reduce wages in order to inflate their currency. This process is painful and always hurts the ones with the least the most. But there is nothing that can really be done about that

[JDPriestly]

11. But, bossy22, the marbles analogy is irrelevant in today's economy.

Marbles have no value. Productivity, labor, natural resources have value.

Everyone is saying that governments have too much debt, our government, their governments.

At the same time, productivity across the world has increased. Increases in productivity means increases in the value of the products that labor produces out of natural resources. For example, in some cases, one man's labor now produces more things, food, services than 10 people or even 50 people used to produce. In addition, we use natural resources more effectively, more efficiently. We can travel much further on a gallon of gas in most of our newer cars than in the cars we drove in the 1950s.

So, the marbles analogy is irrelevant. Because a marble is a marble. Whereas value has changed.

Governments are in the red because they have not adjusted their tax mechanisms to apply to the improvement in productivity and the more efficient use of natural resources.

I think that economists in general are not analyzing the situation correctly. I know it is cheeky of me to say so, but the austerity measures will simply slow investment in the development of new technologies that further improve productivity and the efficient use of resources.

The increased national indebtedness is actually due to the problems our societies have in adjusting to the increased productivity and efficient use of resources. As I pointed out, in many instances, it now only takes one person to do the work that it used to take ten people. That means that nine people don't have meaningful work to do.

Where are those nine to get the money to continue to participate in society, to eat, to live? From the government. It's the only place to which they can turn. People retire early. They take their pensions and Social Security early. They have to go on unemployment. They take jobs where they earn less money. There is less money circulating because it costs less in terms of labor and natural resources to make products. And since people are earning less, they don't pay as much in income taxes -- which are, almost universally, the source of income for governments at all levels.

In my view, economists are not even looking at the real problem which is: how to redistribute not only the wealth and benefits from our increased productivity, but also from our more efficient use of natural resources.

Talking about government deficits (which exist everywhere because no one is dealing honestly with the real issues that I outline above), is just a waste of time. The real issue is, how do you make sure that woman who used to work as a secretary, or that man who used to fasten a bolt into the side of an automobile now that her or his job is done by a computer has income, can contribute to our new society and can eat and live a decent life in our new economy?

All this talk about austerity is really counterproductive. The deficit is merely a symptom, not a cause.

[defendandprotect]

20. Austerity, except for the MIC . . . war machinery/intelligence agencies.....

Productivity, labor, natural resources have value.

Productivity has increased because of stagnating wages and down scaling of jobs --

and destruction of unions -- employees under threat --

Socialism might have looked at that as an opportunity to cut the work day to 5 hours --

thereby creating new jobs. Americans talked about that long ago -- before the absolute

right wing takeover of democracy.


Additionally, that we have failed to act on Global Warming and alternative energy over 60 years

now is directly attributable to the fact that OUR NATURAL RESOURCES ARE IN PRIVATE HANDS.

Governments are in the RED now because in America progressive taxation has been overturned by

the radical right -- and its political violence over decades -- and election steals with computers.

The wealth extracted from exploitation of our natural resources provides elites the wherewithal

to BUY government influence -- and PRE-BRIBE candidates and OWN elected officials.


Eventually, you come to the finale where robots replace human beings. What then?

Unions have long recognized the threat of machinery to jobs. So have the Luddites.

But, of course, that's nonsense because human beings will always be more valuable --

and it is "slave labor" that is the objective.


In my view, economists are not even looking at the real problem which is: how to redistribute not only the wealth and benefits from our increased productivity, but also from our more efficient use of natural resources.

Certainly our informed leaders are not acting to "redistribute wealth" BUT HAVE WORKED to "harvest

slave labor" for corporations -- and to knock out UNIONS which have also been in their way.

Permitting CAPITAL to fly off -- something which labor cannot do -- is also the work of government.

See Nixon: Brettonwoods Agreement

Tariffs and Trade Agreements are also creating oceans of slave labor.

Anyone here think they can compete with the wages and output of a slave?

Over the last decades, the right wing has moved the burden of taxation onto the shoulders of

the poor and middle class. While completely removing any tax burden from the wealthy --

especially those private interests who control our natural resources!

[JDPriestly]

24. Excellent points.

You state the problem very well. But what is the solution?

And how do we get people to understand what is happening to them in time for us all to respond in a way that unites our society, that does not tear us apart?

I have children and grandchildren. I do not want them to grow up in permanent austerity, but rather to have what they need without being greedy. How do we create a culture in which taking what you need and giving what you don't need to your neighbor is the norm, in which we do not judge others solely on what economic advantage they provide for us?

Interested in your ideas on this. Violence is not the answer.

Personally, I think that the answer must be inspired by increased spiritual awareness of the oneness of all life. But that answer is awfully vague and cannot be understood or even explained on an intellectual level. And that makes communicating it to large numbers of people almost impossible.

What do you think?

[defendandprotect]

35. Americans have never been political in the sense that Europeans have been . . .

Some families, of course, were --

And, women, IMO, have been very inclined to ignore politics --

The other part of it is they continue to have "trust" in government rather than an

appropriate amount of distrust --

How many female politicians are put forth as someone to admire -- if you watch any TV

what you see are young girls learning how to be exploited, IMO!

A great deal of the problem is government controlled by elites/corporations --

we have to find a way to get the money out -- and to keep them from pre-BRIBING and

pre-OWNING our candidates and elected officials.

Basically, we're fighting right wing corruption -- including their political violence of

more than 50 years -- at least the overt violence we know about!

You state the problem very well. But what is the solution?

And how do we get people to understand what is happening to them in time for us all to respond in a way that unites our society, that does not tear us apart?

We've had a number of opportunities to NATIONALIZE the oil industry -- FDR was going to do it

and sought LBJ's advice! The Democratic Platform that JFK ran on in 1960 called for

NATIONALIZING THE OIL INDUSTRY. Kennedy was also ending the oil depletion allowance.

We subsidize the oil industry with billions every year, as well.

This privatization of our natural resources has kept oil industry in a position of wealth to

propagadanize the nation re Global Warming -- resulting in 60 years of our government doing

nothing about Global Warming! These private interests in oil have also kept high MPG cars

off our highways -- including electric cars.

We had cars with 42 MPG and more in the 1960's!

These interests also destroyed mass transportation in America post-WWII. Oil and GM.

And we've never recovered nor been able to move on to improve that situation.

Our RRs were destroyed even for travel.

We can't put all of this power in private hands and then still expect to have an effective

"people's" government. Since the Civil War the wealth in the private sector, especially in

the South, has grown to be a threat to democratic government.


I have children and grandchildren. I do not want them to grow up in permanent austerity, but rather to have what they need without being greedy. How do we create a culture in which taking what you need and giving what you don't need to your neighbor is the norm, in which we do not judge others solely on what economic advantage they provide for us?

Interested in your ideas on this. Violence is not the answer.

First, nothing has to be as it is. It's a question of power and reversing it.

And trying to find the way to do that. I think NATURE is going to force most of those decisions

upon us. (See LINK below which also discusses the necessity for a complete change in culture re GW)

I left you comment in re violence because that is always the question . . .

How do we control the violence of the few among us? It's never really been done.

But we can see that when violence isn't controlled, the right wing rises and begins to corrupt

everything around it. Many simply want to be on the side of those in power.

Many willing to do their bidding for whatever benefits they get in return.

But in the end, this violence vs Nature is causing us to lose the planet -- our ability to

survive on it -- and perhaps the planet itself. It was essential for the oil industry --

ExxonMobil, especially, to keep that hidden from the public for 50+ years now. They spent

billions on doing just. Few years ago, Royal Academy of Scientists called ExxonMobil out for

their lies, misinformation, disinformation -- propaganda -- to deceive the public and called

on them to STOP. NY Times gave ExxonMobil a great assist with their propaganda in putting

their lies on the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times for decades.



Personally, I think that the answer must be inspired by increased spiritual awareness of the oneness of all life. But that answer is awfully vague and cannot be understood or even explained on an intellectual level. And that makes communicating it to large numbers of people almost impossible.

What do you think?

What I think is that we have to keep asking one another "What do you think" in regard to truly

relevant issues. Not what's on TV. Not what's on sale. The suburban life doesn't help there

much!

I'm a recovering Catholic -- probably agnostic/atheist -- but feel that we are all spiritually

connected thru nature -- we are all made of the same stuff. Including animal-life.

I'd remind you that all of the world's major religions taught REINCARNATION until it became

inconvenient for elites. If we truly thought we were coming back again -- over and over again --

would we fight harder? There isn't much that Nature doesn't recycle.


If you consider the real youth revolution of the 1960's -- not what the right wing likes to

limit to the "Sexual Revolution" -- you see that there has been an overall attack on authority,

sharply directed at that time, but somewhat blunted now. But it's as useless to try to stop it

as it is for the right wing to stop feminism or democracy, equality for all.

Once the ideas are out there, really no stoppin them.

In the mean time, however, the right wing violence trying to stop the challenges are very

dangerous and harmful. But most of all the backlash bought and paid for by the right wing.

None of it is valid.

Have to link you to my journal -- go down a few articles to this heading

The right wing wealthy have kept right wing stuff going ---

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/defendandprotect


AND --


And, you might also be interested in this truer look at what the "Sexual Revolution" was

really all about . . .

"I realized that in this country we had a revolution--of housing, food, hair style, clothing, cosmetics, transportation, value systems, religion--it was an economic revolution, affecting the cosmetics industry, canned foods, the use of land; people were delivering their own babies, recycling old clothes, withdrawing from spectator sports. They were breaking the barriers where white and black could rap in 1967. This was the year of the Beatles, the summer of Sergeant Pepper, the Monterey Pop Festival, Haight-Ashbury, make your own candle and turn off the electricity, turn on with your friends and laugh--that's what life was all about."

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Ballad%20of%20Mae%20Brussell.html


AND ... Here's the Scientists' Warning to Humanity re Global Warming and the culture

change that is required --

SCIENTISTS WARNING TO HUMANITY/
GLOBAL WARMING


http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html
1. Scientist Statement
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.
INTRODUCTION


Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
THE ENVIRONMENT


The environment is suffering critical stress:


The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.


Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.


Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.


Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.


Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks
are very great.


Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.


Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.
POPULATION


The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.


Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.


No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
WARNING


We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.
WHAT WE MUST DO


Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.
We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs -- small-scale and relatively easy to implement.


We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.


We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.


We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.


We must stabilize population.
This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.


We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.
DEVELOPED NATIONS MUST ACT NOW


The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.
Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic, and environmental collapse.


Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1 trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.


A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.
We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural, social, economic, and political.
We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders.
We require the help of the world's religious leaders.
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.

And, btw, the "warning" was met with silence --


None of that, of course, suggests a single event which will provide a "solution" to

unraveling this thing. IMO, we're basically fighting organized crime.

The Drug War, of course, is another complication in brutalizing the nation and

creating loss of civil rights.










:)

[JDPriestly]

36. Thanks. Sounds like we would be on the same page.

[defendandprotect]

19. That's why we need PROGRESSIVE taxation and why the elites overturned it ...!!

[JDPriestly]

9. It seems to me that the IMF which goes around imposing

austerity measures that hurt the poor but not the rich is inconsistent with the whole "free market" philosophy. The IMF, more than any other organization or government in the world, manipulates markets by imposing austerity measure.

If these people really believed in the free market, they would just let countries borrow until they couldn't borrow any more. But all the talk about "free markets" is just for the "small people." The "free market" propaganda is double-talk intended to distract the muddled middle class from seeing what is really going on, how the rich pull all the strings via the IMF.

But, just watch all these sons and daughters of car salesmen and lawyers and doctors who always got their ponies for Christmas spout that "free market" propaganda. They are so blind to what is really going on.

The IMF and the small clique of wealthy people who control it pull the strings. National governments are just puppets. The myth of nations and national governments is maintained only to keep ordinary people feeling special and separate, to prevent ordinary people from looking behind the puppet show to see who pulls the strings.

[Imajika]

14. Couldn't nations just refuse IMF loans?

I mean, a country runs up a massive debt, its creditors won't loan money cheap anymore because investors fear a default, and the IMF steps in and offers a package with rules and restrictions attached. The country can just refuse right, but they do not because the alternative is worse. So while it is true that many of us, including myself, agree that the IMF's formulation of how a country can right itself are often just plain bad economics, these nations must feel that the alternative is worse.

The key here is, just like any family or business, nations shouldn't run up massive debt to the point its creditors put the squeeze on them. This is what happens when you owe a lot of money. Individuals, businesses and nations open themselves up to all sorts of dire consequences when this happens.

Bottom line, indebted countries are going to have to spend less or bring in more revenue. That fight takes place every election cycle pretty much everywhere. If a country like Greece refuses to make the tough decisions then it the will probably be forced to accept an IMF bailout with all the negatives that entails.

Way too many people are running around blaming the IMF, rating agencies, etc, for the fact that countries like Greece simply won't balance their budget.

It appears to me that voters in many nations are now deciding to elect politicians who push for major cuts rather than steep tax increases - thus we are getting "austerity" measures which reflect this philosophy. If that policy is boneheaded, it is really the voters we need to take it up with.

I do agree the IMF is bad news, and If were running a country I'd prefer to default before I took their money. But the blame is still with the country that ran up the debt - not the IMF.

[JDPriestly]

15. This discussion with you has brought me to the realization

that the real issue is: In this time when technology has transformed industry so that we need very little labor, and the availability of labor far exceeds the demand and when we use raw materials so efficiently that more can be produced out of fewer raw materials, how do we value human life?

What do we do with people whose labor is not needed? That is the essential question of our time.

Austerity is certainly one way to react. If we adopt austerity, we effectively tell those whose labor is not needed that we will starve them slowly but surely. We will first make their lives so difficult that they either choose to die or commit crimes to keep living.

How much do we really value human life? How austerely should a person whose labor is not needed have to live? Should Bill Gates' financial peers enjoy all the goodies while their neighbors who barely finished high school starve to death?

I believe that we will have to rethink all of our economic theories. We no longer live in an economy in which a man's value depends on his productivity in the sense we have understood since the beginning of human life. We are a web, a social structure of humans. Our worth is not only dependent on what we produce. The concept of the IMF is based on the idea that goods and services should be distributed to those who have the money to pay for them. That worked when we needed an incentive, money, to use to get people to work and produce things and services. But we don't need people to work producing services and products to the extent we did. What now? How can we compensate people whose work is not needed, whose labor has no value?

[defendandprotect]

22. What we do is continue to limit the work day . . . make it 2 hours if necessary . . .

but underlying this all is the attack on unions -- now down to something like 7%?

And the overall attack on labor --

In order to make these huge profits, elites have always had to control LABOR and ENERGY --

ENERGY IS FAILING THEM NOW . . . IN THE LONG TERM . . .

And our government holds the keys to setting unions free to unions the world!

[JDPriestly]

23. I agree that a reduced work week is a great idea.

It would make it possible for older people to work longer.

But what compensation should people receive for a reduced work week.

The problem with unions is that they are, as are so many institutions in our society, posited on the idea that everyone has a job, has work. Unions traditionally are organizations for employed people.

In a world in which, increasingly, people do not have jobs because so much of the work is done by computers and other machines, what is the role of unions? Do we perhaps need some other kind of organization for people who are not wealthy and need to have a strong, unified voice?

I'm all for unions, but, I am a retired clerical/professional worker. My professional organization represents the people who are still working in my profession. (In fact, my professional organization is more focused on disciplining people who work in my profession and on public relations than on doing positive things for the people who work in my profession.) Even though I am retired, I am still required to pay dues to my professional organization. (That's a real scam if you want to ask me.) I really never belonged to a union. I envy those who can belong to a union. But just how relevant are unions to the vast numbers of people who don't have work, who are retired or who work in fields in which there are no unions?

So, you see, unions have been marginalized by the fact that so many Americans are unemployed or in fields that have never been organized into unions. Unions were strong when manufacturing jobs were plentiful. I am wondering whether you have some ideas about how the organizing aspect of unions could be applied to people who are now unemployed?

[defendandprotect]

30. Well, many people past 65 are still in the labor force because they can't

afford to retire --

Social Security checks - like private sector checks -- should be twice what they are.

As for salaries . . . that's the point . . . the salary should be reduced --

and should always be minimum living wage.


It would make it possible for older people to work longer.

Nor do we want older people working longer, necessarily?

Open the jobs for the younger generation -- that was the original purpose of 65 year old

retirement.


The problem with unions is that they are, as are so many institutions in our society, posited on the idea that everyone has a job, has work. Unions traditionally are organizations for employed people.

People are trying to organize the unemployed now -- so many long term unemployed.

Who organizes the homeless? The poor? Those forced to turn to government for assistance?


In a world in which, increasingly, people do not have jobs because so much of the work is done by computers and other machines, what is the role of unions? Do we perhaps need some other kind of organization for people who are not wealthy and need to have a strong, unified voice?

People aren't losing jobs simply because of computers -- computers can also make a lot of work!

People are losing jobs because our government has permitted American corporations to

"harvest slave labor" outside the country -- and for decades to bring foreign labor in to compete

with American workers -- they've permitted the elites to create "shortages" in professions when

they want to bring in foreigners -- and to create "over production in other fields, such as

engineers" in order to reduce salaries!


I'm all for unions, but, I am a retired clerical/professional worker. My professional organization represents the people who are still working in my profession. (In fact, my professional organization is more focused on disciplining people who work in my profession and on public relations than on doing positive things for the people who work in my profession.) Even though I am retired, I am still required to pay dues to my professional organization. (That's a real scam if you want to ask me.) I really never belonged to a union. I envy those who can belong to a union. But just how relevant are unions to the vast numbers of people who don't have work, who are retired or who work in fields in which there are no unions?

If you're retired, why are paying into this organization, especially when you think it

"a real scam"?

"How relevant are unions to the vast numbers of people who don't have work, who are retired or who work in fields in which there are no unions?"?

Think the question is: "How relevant might unions be across the globe?"

And that's the relevance we should concentrate on, IMO.



So, you see, unions have been marginalized by the fact that so many Americans are unemployed or in fields that have never been organized into unions. Unions were strong when manufacturing jobs were plentiful. I am wondering whether you have some ideas about how the organizing aspect of unions could be applied to people who are now unemployed?

Unions haven't been "marginalized" . . .

Unions have been under right wing attack for decades!

What the right wing couldn't do to destroy them thru legislation, they did by using

organized crime/MAFIA to do for them!

And, of course, the trade agreements have done great harm -- Still, Obama has not seen fit to

even amend them -- they should be overturned.

This is teason vs the American worker -- a concerted effort by elites to destroy the

Middle Class and create their dream of a highly profitable -- for them --

"third world America." GOP has been working on that for decades.

[Imajika]

26. That didn't work in France...

My understanding is the entire attempt to create more employment by reducing the work week and all but banning overtime failed pretty miserably.

In what places has reducing the work week actually succeeded in creating more jobs?

[defendandprotect]

31. Well, what's the explanation for why it didn't work? What was the opposition?

Why wouldn't it work --

WHEN LABOR HAS CONTROL AND NOT CORPORATIONS ...

You increase the labor force to full employment -- no matter how little

each person does each day.

[anigbrowl]

34. It's your proposal; it's up to you to justify it

From an economic point of view, your idea is known as the "lump of labor fallacy" - the idea that there is only so much work to be done, but by rationing it out everyone will have a job.

This is absurd on its face, as the only way to make limited amounts of productivity worth more would be to massively inflate pay, destroying trading power. It's a stupid idea that only appeals to people who hate math, in exactly the same way as the idea of creating jobs by deporting all illegal aliens (even though the economy would shrink as a result because they are no longer purchasing food, gas, etc.).

[jmowreader]

37. What good is everyone having a job...

if no one can afford to live off the jobs they have?

Certainly you could put everyone in America to work if you cut the workweek back to 8 hours, but what good will that do if you need five jobs to survive? For most people, it's hard enough to get the one they've got!

[Imajika]

25. You have some good points...

I certainly don't have the answer. I really think things like the IMF are pretty irrelevant to the bigger questions though. I mean, no one is required to take the IMF money. They are a creditor of last resort and countries are free to reject their assistance. It sounds like we both dislike the IMF and just wouldn't take their money. I honestly think defaulting is probably a better option. People take a gamble when they invest in something or some country, and if a country like Greece defaults then so be it. Many claim it would be the end of the world, but I don't think so. Defaulting would not save Greece from some tough decisions. They still have a large deficit even with 0 debt payments, but if they are going to have to do some ugly things to get their books in order it may as well be without the grubby hands of the IMF on it. I think we all know those countries that put the IMF package together are really more worried about a Eurozone default for the sake of their own banks and financial positions - not for the good of Greece.

Anyway, your getting to a much bigger issue that I recognize but have no solutions for. First I'd have to know if we really need less labor now than at previous times. I know we are more productive and efficient, but because manufacturing and blue collar type work is going away does not necessarily mean that an abundance of pink and white collar jobs won't continue to replace them. That we have machines to do the "dirty work" may not necessarily mean plenty of intellectual type work won't be needed. We have around 10% unemployment now across the US and Europe, but it wasn't but a few years ago we hovered around 5% in the US - and that is often considered full employment. But alas, times seem to have changed over the last couple years and I do not know if that is permanent or just a function of the severe recession.

"How much do we really value human life? How austerely should a person whose labor is not needed have to live? Should Bill Gates' financial peers enjoy all the goodies while their neighbors who barely finished high school starve to death?"

All good questions. Whose labor is not needed though. I mean, because one type of work is no longer needed doesn't mean that person can never work again. They may not like that their profession is no longer needed, but we can hardly keep producing outdated products just to keep people working. Who would pay for the goods produced? I guess that would be a bit like keeping the carriage industry going with government tax dollars, even though the automobile replaced it.

One thing that seems easy for us to correct is the absurd disparity in income. There is simply no excuse for a CEO to making 300% or 3000% more than the average worker in their company. One would hope that common decency would prevent such things, but it is pretty clear it wont. A much more progressive tax system is necessary - one that goes at the personal incomes of the extremely wealthy. A 75% tax rate on income earners in the top bracket is not unreasonable. While it sounds like a lot, considering the dollar amounts we are talking about it really isn't.

"I believe that we will have to rethink all of our economic theories. We no longer live in an economy in which a man's value depends on his productivity in the sense we have understood since the beginning of human life. We are a web, a social structure of humans. Our worth is not only dependent on what we produce."

Maybe so. I am not sure. At the end of the day, we are still born and expected to grow up, get a skill and go market said skill. Our value to society at large is determined by the goods and services we produce. We can argue that is shouldn't be this way, but I think most people that work hard to produce those goods and services simply will not accept paying taxes to fund too much for those that don't. We really don't think like a collective, work for the team, grow society for all, etc, etc. While it sounds noble to try, this was what marxism was supposed to accomplish and it appears to fail. Human nature seems to run so contrary to its principles that it just doesn't work. However, you are right, I think that our economic and social systems much progress to some new model. If you have any ideas I'd certainly like to hear them!

Anyway, you make lots of good points and it will give me something to think about.

[truedelphi]

28. In your discussion of the IMF - you are overlooking how little money is needed for

The IMF to convince people in power to take the money.

Bribery is working all across the globe. (In our naiton it is called "Campaign financing.")

It is said that Bechtel Corp. was able to buy the Senators in the nation of Bolivia into selling the naiton's water rights to Bechtel for a mere ten million dollars a Senator.

Here it might cost ten times that. In places like Bangladesh, possibly one tenth of that ten million.

And IMF works the same way Bechtel does. (Of course, in Bolivia, people eventually took to the streets and faced down the militia and the police to get theri water back and drive Bechtel out.)

[Imajika]

29. Okay, but the citizens have the ability..

..to remove people in power that accept IMF financing against their will. The IMF usually makes its financial offers when a nations back is already to the wall. Generally speaking, the government is going to have to impose painful cuts and tax increases by that time no matter what happens. Yes, I would argue a combination of defaulting and the cuts and tax increases that would inevitably follow are the better solution, but these governments are taking the money because the IMF austerity plan is usually not even as draconian (at first) as what said government would have had to do if it defaulted. You take Greece for example. Greece could default tomorrow and it would STILL have to go forward with either painful cuts, huge tax increases or some combination of both. I mean, they run something like an 8% deficit even with no debt payments. They just don't have the money to pay for what they have budgeted. Some people protested, but it would appear most Greeks are reluctantly willing to go along with the IMF package.

At the end of the day, the problem is that nations allow themselves to get into tremendous debt which leaves them open to these terrible terms the creditors can impose assuming the country in question accepts the financing. It really is not much different than an individual, family or business that gets heavily in debt and is hounded by creditors imposing higher fees, higher rates, less credit, odious fees, etc. Once in the hole, it is very difficult to get out.

The solution to this is to balance budgets. Period. Everybody can't have everything they want each budget year. That really is the problem. The left considers the social safety net, public employees, etc to be major priorities that can't be cut, and the right has all sorts of other priorities they don't believe can be cut. Same fight over taxes. The left believe in highly progressive taxation, the right thinks taxes are already too high. So we end up with something much less than a real progressive tax structure to pay for many/most of both sides priorities. This leads to high deficits which leads to high debt.

The IMF is like a vulture. The best bet is to produce budgets that are reasonably balanced to keep away the creditors.

[truedelphi]

38. You say, the citizens have some power... When and where?

We couldn't even get Al Gore or Kerry installed into office -even though it was announced on Sept 12 2001 that Gore had the most votes in the state of Florida, and although Kerry might have won if he hadn't let Carville convince him that there were not enough unprocessed ballots in Ohio.

I know that about 65% (at least) of other Americans are sick sick SICK unto death of us fighting the wars we fight. But how do we stop them?

The problem about the balanced budget is that the military is spending all the money - and neither the Dems or the Republicans will ever cut the military spending.

[defendandprotect]

32. IMF has been destroying nations for decades. . .

[defendandprotect]

21. Agree . . .

[defendandprotect]

16. So . . . they're cutting the Military, right . . . . ?

[mwooldri]

27. Yes.

There will be a defence spending review in November - most likely will cancel defence capital projects and reduce the size of the Army. Trident - which needs replacing - will at the least be delayed (saves money) and if the Lib Dems get more influence on it then Trident will be replaced with a lower cost system.

So whilst this year defence spending is protected, given Afghanistan and all that... the axe is coming to the military next year for sure.

[defendandprotect]

33. Bush increased MIC spending by 1/3rd if I recall correctly . . .

and allegedly we're reducing it by how much?

We need to get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq -- it's bankrupting the Treasury.

No time for delay!


And let me just add that we know nothing about intelligence budgets--!!

In fact, I've read that at times our Education budgets included hidden money for the CIA -

50% of the budget!

Do your remember the new building for intelligence that was put up and Americans didn't

even know about it -- huge amount of money.

We have no clue what the intelligence budgets are --

Also keep in mind that when Ike told you about the MIC, he intended to tell you, as well,

about the MIC and 'INTELLIGENCE" COMPLEX. Ike put "intelligence" into the draft twice

and twice it was taken out!

[mwooldri]

39. IIRC the British are effectively already out of Iraq.

And they want to get out of Afghanistan SOON.

The thread was talking about UK politics, not US politics.

Under Blair and Brown, UK defence spending did go up.

Under Cameron/Clegg it's going to go down, cos Blair/Brown spent too much money.

I don't think the USA are sending the UK any cash to support their efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan to make it look like a bipartisanship deal. And yes, Bush 43 did pump up defense spending.

[defendandprotect]

41. Certainly UK citizens didn't want any involvement in these wars . . . Blair did it --

However, the US got "allies" involved in these fake wars --

if it were not for us they wouldn't have been there!

But the reality is we have US budgets which are only about WAR --

is that all we want?

MIC budget should be cut in half --

in fact, if we combined the services which other nations have already done --

we could save an immediate 28% of the military budget!!

[No Elephants]

40. I thought "Deficits don't matter."