PDA

View Full Version : Nuking the economy


Spence
04-20-2006, 04:04 PM
This is one of the most blistering critiques of the Bush economy I've ever seen. And before you scoff about more partisan attacks, realize that this is written by a Republican. Not just any Republican. The author is Paul Craig Roberts, who [aside from having three first names] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. You can't have better Republican credentials than that. Consider:Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods-producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.

The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.
...
No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration!Source (http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021306Roberts.shtml)

RedskinsDave
04-20-2006, 04:10 PM
I have a friend who is at Treasury who told me that the Secretary wants to get out but wants assurance that one of the DepSecs no one likes won't get the job.

Spence
04-20-2006, 04:25 PM
I have a friend who is at Treasury who told me that the Secretary wants to get out but wants assurance that one of the DepSecs no one likes won't get the job.
:lol1: Keeping a job you don't like out of spite. I like it!

CNYSkinFan
04-25-2006, 02:26 PM
I have a friend who is at Treasury who told me that the Secretary wants to get out but wants assurance that one of the DepSecs no one likes won't get the job.
Profiles in Courge...Bush Administration style.

RedskinsDave
04-25-2006, 03:20 PM
Profiles in Courge...Bush Administration style.

Gee, and you guys wonder why I refrain from posting negative Bush things. :rolleyes:

CNYSkinFan
04-25-2006, 03:26 PM
Gee, and you guys wonder why I refrain from posting negative Bush things. :rolleyes:

I thought that was pretty funny cmon!!!

Keino
04-25-2006, 05:38 PM
Actually Roberts is a last name unless we are talking about more than one Robert.

swheeler
04-25-2006, 08:11 PM
Actually Roberts is a last name unless we are talking about more than one Robert.
Or maybe a Dread Pirate

Agrawog
04-25-2006, 09:33 PM
What that story illustrates (besides the obvious uselesness of anything Bush says) is the inability of the media to communicate this kind of information in any meaningful way to the masses.

Their window of communication is so tiny (1 minute stories, USA Today column inches) that they only use the most general of stats and don't dig even a little like the writer did.

it also points to the fact that we are asleep at the switch in telling our government that this stuff is important to us. If we did, then they would do something.

I have to say the future looks pretty bleak if you listen to those stats.

The image of the captain at the head of the Titanic comes to mind. Do you think Bush would dress up in a captain's costume for that photo op?

Keino
04-25-2006, 10:16 PM
The image of the captain at the head of the Titanic comes to mind. Do you think Bush would dress up in a captain's costume for that photo op?


LMAO. At least that Capt went down with his ship. Bush would probably make one of his underlings stand in his place, while he was on the 1st lifeboat. Then when called on it, he'd claim not to have been aware the ship had hit an iceburg and that he was in the lifeboat doing an inspection. Followed by pledges to seek out and rid the earth of all dangerous iceburgs and in the middle of that job re-shifting focus to Oak Trees while connecting the Oak trees and iceburgs through inuendo and cooked intel. Seems more consistant with his MO.