[nobodypanic]

You just don't get it. Those private jobs aren't coming back. If you think our current economic difficulties are just another recession, you are beyond educating.

capital needs these housecleaning, clear-the-deck events before it proceeds to more accumulation - it is part of how it operates. it's just getting ready to gear-up again.

There won't be gear ups anymore .
Not this century (except of minor fluctuations on downhill trajectory).
Growth era is over.

what we've had since '08 wasn't a 'minor fluctuation'; it was a heck of a run. sorry if you missed the boat on that one, but here's your chance at a replay.

[Keith_McClary]

during economic recession / depression, gov needs to hire MORE workers not fire them. It juices up the economy, it's the only thing that can get a country out of depression. Once the private sector starts to heat up and even inflate, THEN you can cut back on the gov sector.

That was a popular theory back in cheap oil days, but if growth is limited by high oil prices, it may no longer work.

That's all we have in the globalist paradigm -- America's job is to be a consumer. Japan makes things, they fight to keep their yen valued lowered than the dollar. Japan wants to make things and wants us to consume them, same with China. Like it or not, that's where we Americans fit in the grand scheme of things.

Problem is, the consumer has maxed out credit.

But, no worries:
Obama Dismisses Standard & Poor's Downgrade

"No matter what some agency may say," Obama said, "we've always been and always will be a triple-A country."

This has the makings of a new patriotic chant:

U! S! A!
A! A! A!

[nobodypanic]

Problem is, the consumer has maxed out credit.

he also has a printing press.

[rangerone314]

There was an interesting article on Bloomberg today that has me wondering the question....of the unemployed how many are actually capable of getting jobs (I suppose there are only so many openings at Mcdonalds?). If the following article is true is a better use of stimulus to provide appropriate job training?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-07/employers-ready-to-hire-in-u-s-can-t-find-qualified-workers-among-jobless.html

Bill Begal says he has spent almost $2,000 since March on help-wanted ads in newspapers, websites, and state employment services up and down the East Coast to find sales and administrative staff for his Rockville, Maryland-based disaster-cleanup company.
“I want people to come out and work for me,” said Begal, 42, whose teams responded to hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, which struck New Orleans and Florida in 2005. “Where are they? I just don’t see it.”
Behind the highest unemployment levels in more than a quarter century is an unexpected twist: Employers like Begal and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) are having a difficult time filling some positions, even as 13.9 million Americans remain without work. The problem is especially acute in pockets such as Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, which bucked the worst of the 18-month recession that ended June 2009, and in industries such as technology where competition for recruits remains high.
“It’s a very much across-the-board phenomena,” said Jeffrey Joerres, president and chief executive officer of Milwaukee-based ManpowerGroup, the world’s second-largest provider of temporary workers behind Glattbrugg, Switzerland- based Adecco SA. (ADEN)“Companies are all feeling the pressure of not finding the level of talent their businesses require,” from “entry-level service positions” to “high-end engineers.”

Frickin obvious answer: there ARE people with the skills who are employable but their houses are underwater and they are loath to move to where the jobs are.

[Keith_McClary]

Problem is, the consumer has maxed out credit.

he also has a printing press.

[Keith_McClary]

Treasuries Downgrade Causes Treasuries To Surge. Seriously

Let me see if I got this straight.

S&P downgraded the ability of the US to pay on Treasury bonds, and this caused demand for Treasury bonds to surge.

And the stock market plummeted, even though corporations are still enjoying record earnings.

Doesn't this all seem backwards, like we're living in some alternate reality? Think of it in terms of interest rates. The risk of not getting paid back on the 10-year bond increased, so the interest people demand to compensate them for that risk ... decreased? WTF?

[AgentR11]

Its because the demand is upside down right now; but its hard for the peons to see it.

So, change places in your mind. Behold a wizard has anointed you, and places 100 million in cash, in your name, in Bank X in NY. Its really yours. But, Bob the Banker calls you up in the morning, he's not offering to pay you interest, he wants you to pay him for the privilege of having that cash in his bank. So you go looking, should I buy in to risk, or do I want to preserve; if you're willing to go risk, you have lots of choices, then again, if you'd put it in risk last Wednesday, you'd have already lost 10-15 million of it. So you think, that sucks, so no risk; ok, bank/cash is negative interest + inflation loss; where can I go?

Where?

Treasuries.

ie, It no longer matters a hill of beans what S&P says about the dollar or treasuries.

Its kinda embarrassing to them that they published it, because it will just go to prove that when the size of the nation's market is so large, and so deeply structured on its own currency, external ratings are no longer even relevant; what matters is that Bob has x-odd million dollars, and the only safe-preserve place he can put it is US Treasuries. At least he knows when he puts 10 mil in Treasuries, he'll get 10 mil out when he needs it next week, or next month.

Their world is not like ours where we stick it in the bank, which ever so kindly pats us on the head with a few cents in interest payment.

[Pops]

I can't figure it out, was S&P trying to recoup some cred after their slight oversight in over rating the trillions in fraudulent, worthless RE gumbo bonds?

They must have known their pronouncement would have no effect and simply underscore their irrelevance, because as AR says 'where else to go?'

They didn't produce anything new or noteworthy in their report, everyone knew just exactly where the US was budget wise (if they believe the published numbers) and everyone knew the TEAs had gone overboard holding the rating hostage for spending cuts - after all, they aren't concerned with credit ratings or deficits or Americans or America, they are only concerned with lowering their own taxes.

So what was S&Ps motivation?

[Cloud9]

The goal was to force a change in course in Washington.

[americandream]

I can't figure it out, was S&P trying to recoup some cred after their slight oversight in over rating the trillions in fraudulent, worthless RE gumbo bonds?

They must have known their pronouncement would have no effect and simply underscore their irrelevance, because as AR says 'where else to go?'

They didn't produce anything new or noteworthy in their report, everyone knew just exactly where the US was budget wise (if they believe the published numbers) and everyone knew the TEAs had gone overboard holding the rating hostage for spending cuts - after all, they aren't concerned with credit ratings or deficits or Americans or America, they are only concerned with lowering their own taxes.

So what was S&Ps motivation?

Who in their right mind would take these ratings clowns seriously after the sub-prime ballsup. I guess they're trying to look busy.

[prajeshbhat]

I can't figure it out, was S&P trying to recoup some cred after their slight oversight in over rating the trillions in fraudulent, worthless RE gumbo bonds? ... So what was S&Ps motivation?

Here's an explanation by Noam Chomsky:-

“The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country and bewilders the world, may have no analogue in the annals of parliamentary democracy,” Chomsky writes. “The spectacle is even coming to frighten the sponsors of the charade. Corporate power is now concerned that the extremists they helped put in office may in fact bring down the edifice on which their own wealth and privilege relies, the powerful nanny state that caters to their interests.”

[Pops]

Here's an explanation by Noam Chomsky:-

“The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country and bewilders the world, may have no analogue in the annals of parliamentary democracy,” Chomsky writes. “The spectacle is even coming to frighten the sponsors of the charade. Corporate power is now concerned that the extremists they helped put in office may in fact bring down the edifice on which their own wealth and privilege relies, the powerful nanny state that caters to their interests.”

Dang! the political quiz I took that put me in exactly the same place on the spectrum as Chomsky was right!

[vision-master]

Christian Nation.......lsol

"At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the LORD's release" (Deuteronomy 15:1-2).

[americandream]

Here's an explanation by Noam Chomsky:-

“The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country and bewilders the world, may have no analogue in the annals of parliamentary democracy,” Chomsky writes. “The spectacle is even coming to frighten the sponsors of the charade. Corporate power is now concerned that the extremists they helped put in office may in fact bring down the edifice on which their own wealth and privilege relies, the powerful nanny state that caters to their interests.”

Thats the problem with getting someone with a simplistic view on economic issues to make complex policy decisions on issues that are more grey than black and white.

[Pops]

OK, so maybe S&P is not so blind after all, from the full report

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-does- ... z1UXbz3e7v

There ya have it, the rating was lowered because the TEAs won't allow the Bush giveaway to the 1% to expire.

[Sixstrings]

There ya have it, the rating was lowered because the TEAs won't allow the Bush giveaway to the 1% to expire.

Well don't forget we all got a little sugar out of the Bush tax cuts. Who doesn't like a tax cut? But.. it was epicly irresponsible. Especially with the huge post 9/11 and war expense.

We really need to be back at clinton rates for everyone. The problem is though they're too afraid it will further wreck the economy by reducing consumer spending. So that's why we run deficits and print money to make up the difference.. and money printing just devalues.. no good end here.

I'd like the money printing more if the gov at least invested in something that could grow the economy -- nationwide advanced high speed rail, a mass WPA jobs program THEN do some capital controls to force American investors to pay attention to the homeland for a change. But nope they don't do that.. they print money just to pump the stock market back up after the raiders short it and walk away with billions, rinse and repeat.

[Pops]

Well don't forget we all got a little sugar out of the Bush tax cuts. Who doesn't like a tax cut? But.. it was epicly irresponsible. Especially with the huge post 9/11 and war expense.

Actually I don't think we need a hugh top tax rate, we just need everyone to pay a share and cut the crap.

https://philebersole.wordpress.com/tag/bush-tax-cuts/

[smiley]

So what was S&Ps motivation?

I have been wondering about that myself. I do not believe one second that the actions of the rating agencies are without motivation. But at the moment just about everyone seems unhappy with this downgrade, even those who think it is justified.

The only ones who have fully supported this move are the Chinese. They have openly stated that this downgrade was a prudent move by S&P and that they don't trust Moodies and Fitch for not lowering the rates.

So I could imagine that this was done in order to gain credibility in Asia. After all S&P is a global company and its interests in Asia are set to exceed those at home.

Der Spiegel had an interesting headline earlier this week (I'll keep it in German for sense of drama).

"Ein neues Bild der wirtschaftlichen Weltordnung

"The USA were for over 100 years the pinnacle of the financial systems", says Hans Peter Burghof, economy professor at the University of Hohenheim. " That is now over." "

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/sozial ... 66,00.html

The conclusion might be a bit premature, but we're certainly seeing a leadership challenge between the US and China at the moment.

And of course the biggest rewards are for those who side with the winner the earliest. Perhaps S&P has made a gamble.

[americandream]

The conclusion might be a bit premature, but we're certainly seeing a leadership challenge between the US and China at the moment.

China challenging the US.........

Methinks not. China is owned by Western capitalism. Any real challenge to the US is about as likely as Arnie the Terminator doing a movie in which he really acts. The only real challenge to the capitalist model that America (and Britain) are in the process of finalising will ONLY come from the workers....and that is a long way off.

[EnergyUnlimited]

So what was S&Ps motivation?

To be the most honest of *main three fraudsters* rating agencies?

Assigning AA+ for a bankrupt state is still a fraud.

Less so than assigning AAA but nevertheless still a fraud.