Wow. Pretty scary. Through their wholy-owned government, the corporate order is preparing to "defend democracy" against those who want it.EPer: wobblie
Dr. Phillips is right, this is the start of a very good op-ed or article and just email me if you want an author account. Good to see you again!
You should turn this comment into a post of it's own.
I tire too of this dismissive attitude from free trade ideologues saying all experts agree. There are quite a few serious economists who do not agree.
They range the gamut from generally being in favor of trade but that our safety net is woefully inadequate to handle the displacement to full on its been a bad deal from the get go. Names like Blinder, Baker, Tonelson, Gomory, Fletcher, Stiglitz, Roubini, Black immediately come to mind as well as former free trade cheerleaders like Reich and even Krugman changing their tunes in recent times.
Even the Adam Smith and David Ricardo would not agree with trade as its practiced today and they are the economists whose theories are often perverted to justify free trade. I just can not imagine the father of comparative advantage agreeing that trading wealth, jobs and technology for debt and deficit is any kind of advantage or good deal.
Something I like to recap when I hear these free trade bozos spout their nonsense:
"Benefits" of free trade
Weakened national security - the pentagon has been sounding this alarm for some time
Lessened technological and innovative edge - manufacturing accounts for over 70% of R&D investment - most advances come not from earth shaking "disruptive" technologies, but from incremental improvement to products and processes - as well as repurposing existing technology.
Stagnant wages - former higher pay, better benefit mfg workers shift to lower pay, no benefit service jobs
Intellectual property theft
Poor quality/ unsafe products
Commoditization of labor
Increased debt/deficit - borrowing to buy foreign made products that we once made for ourselves
Supply chain interruption - dependence on materials and products from unstable and potentially hostile parts of the world
Increased energy demand - takes a lot of energy to ship things all over the world
Accelerated environmental degradation- shift of production to less regulatory environments and increased consumption of extracted finite resources
Human rights abuses
People here in flyover country are not the unskilled uneducated rubes the elites take us for. We do see for ourselves the devastation that "free" trade has wrought on our communities - boarded up main streets, closed factories and the resultant loss of tax revenue to keep up basic services. Towns all over the industrial Midwest have lost their productive capacities I can take you on a tour of my city and tell you where every plant went - Mexico, China, Pakistan, India if not outright run out of business by unfair foreign competition. The few that remain are ghosts of their former selves. And these were not "buggy whip" makers that declined due to changing technologies - these were all manufacturers of products in daily use today. Another infuriating claim by the free traders BTW - that obsolescence and automation took the jobs away.
Two world wars were won by the Arsenal of Democracy - our manufacturing capacity was able to easily convert from civilian purposes to war material in short notice - we'd be in big trouble today if it came to that again, Cripes, we cant even make boots and uniforms anymore.
Then I hear crap like that T-shirts are cheaper. We used to be able to afford T-shirts just fine when we made them for ourselves.
Here is how it works:
Walmart claims they save an average family $2600 a year with their imported junk
An average manufacturing worker earned $50k a year. Mfg worker's plant closes and he/she is forced to take a service job that pays 20% less or $10k. $10000 - 2600 = $7400 less money an average family has that is not spent on housing, education, goods, savings, paying down debt and so forth- all productive things for an economy - but hey we saved a couple bucks on a T-Shirt - yippee!EPer: Blueneck
Billionaires and their businesses are dictating trade, on a global scale. Both parties, EVERYBODY wants something done about these horrific trade deals, offshore outsourcing, bringing in foreign guest workers, glorified legalized money laundering, tax havening, etc. agenda.
The clue is in the derivatives driven crash. The major big banks are hedged up to a small percentage of assets per REGW.Big losses are not hedged. Private players will make a killing. The duped public will be told again why the banks will have to be bailed out.A return to the world before Graham Leach could be a step towards sanity, but never done voluntarily.
With all due respect SR, did you read the article or just the title? You are correct, but I make that point in the article.
Aside from their deeply religious convictions, the Constitution Party's paleocon stances make them more similar to Trump's brand of conservatism, than the business, globalist-friendly, neocon-welcome conservatism of the NeverTrumpers. As such, there's no way they'd support Castle over Trump. It's not really a matter of what's "conservative" or not, other than what is one's definition of conservative. NeverTrumpers are either Old or New Rich types who are in favor of the economic status quo. They don't care for what the Constitution Party is selling.
What I'm more puzzled by is why the Constitution Party isn't endorsing Trump this time around, like the American Independent Party already has in California. The only thing they differ on with Trump is on social matters, but one would think that Pence shores him up.EPer: SR (not verified)
They just don't care. They are corrupt.
The future is bleak with either of these two. The question is how long can the US and the current system last?
My brother is an engineer and he does not see the danger of H-1Bs to his job. He reads business weak. The fool.EPer: wobblie
i saw this coming in 1992 when i was 25 years old. i voted for Ross Perot. The only billionaire that actually cared about the little guy.
Unfortunately, i still believe the "elites" in both parties still don't get it and change is still a generation away.EPer: allen
I believe Mr. Richardson helped establish the Peace and Freedom Party in FL because he supported their nominee, Roseanne Barr. He is not easily pigeon holed.
Thanks for the response.
construction spending for all three months of the 2nd quarter was lower than reported by the BEA in the advance report for 2nd quarter GDP... annualized construction spending for April was revised $9.9 billion lower, and annualized construction spending for May was revised $2.4 billion lower...in reporting 2nd quarter GDP, the BEA's technical note indicated that they had estimated June residential construction would be $3.9 billion greater than that of the previously reported May figure, and that June nonresidential construction would be $1.4 billion greater than that of the reported May figure...with this report, May residential construction spending was revised from the originally reported $451.9 billion to $445.9 billion, while May nonresidential construction spending was revised from the originally reported $407.4 billion to $410.7 billion....that means the BEA overestimated June construction spending by $8.0 billion...the annualized figure for 2nd quarter construction spending would thus be $6.8 billion less than the figure used by the BEA when computing 2nd quarter GDP, implying a .23 percentage point reduction to 2nd quarter GDP...meanwhile, the aggregate value of June factory inventories fell for the 13th time in the past fourteen months, decreasing by $0.5 billion or 0.1 percent to $619.1 billion,....June inventories of durable goods decreased in value by $1.0 billion or 0.3 percent to $381.3 billion, revised from the 0.2% decrease that was reported in the advance report....the value of non-durable goods' inventories increased by $0.5 billion or 0.2% to $237.9 billion, following a decrease of 0.3% in May...the BEA's technical note for 2nd quarter GDP indicates that they had estimated that the value of non-durable goods inventories would increase by $19.3 billion,.so if i'm reading this right, that would indicate a substantial reduction to 2nd quarter GDP on the order of $18.8 billion, or a 0.64 percentage point hit to 2nd quarter growth..
While you may have already come to a personal decision with respect to candidates , I would like to offer a counter perspective for those members of the Party who are open to considering all candidates. I happen to know both the Reform Party and Mr. De La Fuente quite well. Dismissing Mr. De La Fuente as a "cookie-cutter progressive Democrat whining about Trump" is as much a mischaracterization as suggesting that Mr. Darcy is closely aligned with the Reform Party's core principles or national platform.
When Mr. Darcy elected not to attend the Reform Party's 2012 convention he stated, "I never really liked going to funerals, so I skipped the Philadelphia convention." Instead, he directed his energy toward establishing the Peace and Freedom Party in Florida, whose national platform begins: "The Peace and Freedom Party, born from the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s, is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism, racial equality, and internationalism." While many of those elements are compatible with the reform Party's positions, I have a hard time rationalizing "socialism" as with the reform party I know.
Conversely, Mr. De La Fuente may be a progressive relative to social issues, but he is a conservative relative to fiscal issues (although he would admonish me for using the term "conservative" over his preferred term: "rational"). Much like Donald Trump, he is a non-traditional candidate who has been extremely successful in the private sector. He has created thousands of jobs across the United States and throughout South and Central America that have allowed families to "move up" from a socio-economic perspective. In fact, he is similar to Mr. Trump in many ways except he believes in treating people with respect. He also is a minority, so he is naturally more sensitive to minority issues than is Mr. Trump and he doesn't have to pretend to understand those issues as so many other traditional candidates do.
Mr. De La Fuente also brings another unique experience to the table. He overcame what previously were thought to be insurmountable barriers to gain ballot access in the Democratic primary (40 states, 5 territories and the District of Columbia) only to suffer election anomalies and outright fraud. For example, on one occasion, Mr. De La Fuente's vote total went DOWN by over 8,000 votes during a 20 minute period in Travis County, Texas. He understands how rampant election manipulation has become and how it must be brought to the American public's attention and stopped (something that is in total alignment with the Reform Party's core principles).
Having been the leading independent candidate for President of the United States in 2012, I can assure you that the Reform Party's candidate will not win the 2016 Presidential election. The question is whether the Party will field a candidate who can attract national attention and truly make a difference (such as on the issue of election reform). Mr. De La Fuente has already established ballot lines in several states, has signature petitions going through validation in about a dozen more, and is currently gathering petitions in about a half-dozen more states with plans to pursue filings in others as well.
I hope this helps fill the gap in information that others may be experiencing and brings some balance to their consideration as well.EPer: TJ O'Hara (not verified)
Very interesting analysis, but wouldn't converting the Reform Party into an anti-globalist, pro-MAR, post-Trump successor party essentially turn it into a non-theocratic version of the Constitution Party? Not that there's anything wrong with that, the CP seems to be the least generally appealing of the big three third parties, maybe a revised Reform that's returned to its Perotista roots could supplant the CP for wider appeal.EPer: SR (not verified)
boom prices probably encourage overinvestment in new production which ultimately leads to a supply glut and a bust...the bust in turn leads to a long period of little new investment in exploration and exploitation while the older fields deplete, eventually leading to a period where demand outstrips supply and another boom..
Forgot to see if there is a cycle pattern to oil boom and bust.
A billionaire and here come the Clintons.
oil crashed to $7 a barrel in 1986, and except for a few geopolitcal spikes, stayed in a range below $25 a barrel till about 1998...
It seems prices plummeted in the 90's and stayed that way for at least a decade but I'm not sure. Do you know?
BTW: I am modifying the site code and have been, why no writing. Almost at a stopping point. Email me if anyone sees weird bugs of course.