If we take the Reagan and Bush senior years to be the real beginning of the current economic depression, and the interceding years to be merely "bubble economics", then it follows that the 35 million Americans who are now unemployed are the result of the initial union busting by the Reagan administration and the subsequent flight of jobs due to Bush's promotion of "free trade". The first companies moving to China and Mexico marks the beginning of the current economic depression. The economic bubbles of the 1990s and 2000s merely postponed the fact that the Reagan union-busting and deregulation and the Bush free trade policy led to the elimination of tens of millions of jobs.
If we take the census data of the 1990 census for the United States, which was 249 million Americans, and we calculate the unemployment rate for 1992, which was 7.5%, we get 19 million Americans out of work. Considering that more and more move-to-China-or-Mexico-to-pay-slave-wages occurred between 1992 and 2008, it follows that the current 35 million unemployed number is representative of the initial, pre-economic-bubble of 1992.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
1992
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/US_Unemployment_1890-2008.gif
Interesting! I wonder just how much "government intervention" there was between 1893 and 1901!
From wikipedia:
"The Panic of 1893 was a serious economic depression in the United States that began in 1893.[1] Similar to the Panic of 1873, this panic was caused by railroad overbuilding and shaky railroad financing which set off a series of bank failures. Compounding market overbuilding and a railroad bubble was a run on the gold supply and a policy of using both gold and silver metals as a peg for the US Dollar value."
Government intervention in the railroad industry cause a huge economic distortion, promoting large amounts of capital to be redistributed to failed, unprofitable railroads. SO, there was plenty.
1. Correlation does not equal causation
2. Government spending was enormous during the Reagan years (hence Paul refers to Reagan as a gigantic failure).
3. Free trade has NEVER existed. Bush/Gore/Clinton promotion of free trade is like calling the Patriot Act patriotic. It was nothing of the sort.
4. The economic bubble the US has been experiencing finds its roots with the creation of the federal reserve, to the end of the gold standard in the 30s, through the use of the dollar as the world reserve after WWII, and then removal of the link to gold in 1971. All of this has provided the US an illusion of wealth, and a mis-allocation of capital through the majority of the 20th century of which we will spend the majority of the 21st century watch unwind, causing massive unemployment and inflation.
Unions simply do not affect enough of the work force for the "busting" of them to be a cause for 20% unemployment. Also, the protectionist trade policies you promote are akin to the same type of policies Reagan implemented in regard to the auto industry and have NEVER been proven to provide long-term, sustainable, economic growth.
"If we take the census data of the 1990 census for the United States, which was 249 million Americans, and we calculate the unemployment rate for 1992, which was 7.5%, we get 19 million Americans out of work. Considering that more and more move-to-China-or-Mexico-to-pay-slave-wages occurred between 1992 and 2008, it follows that the current 35 million unemployed number is representative of the initial, pre-economic-bubble of 1992."
Unemployment calculations changed after 1992. Using the same calculation as in 1992 (before Clinton removed the "discouraged worker" portion), unemployment estimates are over 22%. There is nothing about this statistic that is representative of the 1992 unemployment rates.
1. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sometimes it actually does, which means your maxim is dumb. THINK. ;)
2. Regan kicked it off, though.
3. By libertardian standards, I suppose it isn't, but it DID eliminate trade tariffs between countries and allow corporations to move their jobs to China and Mexico. I call that free trade. You might not, but being able to move your jobs around the globe, for me, is much freer than being barred from moving those jobs around the globe.
4. The depression of the late 19th century was not the result of the FED. And if the financial system was regulated, not deregulated as it was under Paul watch during the Clinton years, there would have been no problem.
"Unions simply do not affect enough of the work force for the "busting" of them to be a cause for 20% unemployment. Also, the protectionist trade policies you promote are akin to the same type of policies Reagan implemented in regard to the auto industry and have NEVER been proven to provide long-term, sustainable, economic growth."
I'm not talking about unions in this thread. I am talking about the movement of jobs from the West to China or Mexico and the resulting lack of job in the West. I am arguing that if the de-regulatory bubble is true, that no new jobs were created to fill the jobs lost to China, which means that the 1992 unemployment of 7.5%, 18 million Americans, was never really replaced, and now that the bubble has burst, will not be replaced. Since there was subsequent downsizing and outsourcing to China and Mexico between 1992 and 2008, I would say that a good chunk of the 35 million Americans is a direct result of this job flight.
"Unemployment calculations changed after 1992. Using the same calculation as in 1992 (before Clinton removed the "discouraged worker" portion), unemployment estimates are over 22%. There is nothing about this statistic that is representative of the 1992 unemployment rates."
Good point, which means the 35 million quoted by Dobbs is actually something like 50-60 million. And guess what the number of workers in China is, Josh! Just guess!
"The depression of the late 19th century was not the result of the FED."
I never said it did. I gave you the real explanation.
Then the real explanation is that the capitalist class, specifically the financing subclass of the capitalist, took over the railroads to profit from them by creating a monopoly. Sounds like capitalism to me. :)
The over-investment in railroads that caused the collapse would not have happened without government subsidies.
And the government subsidies would never have happened without the backing of capitalist power.
"And the government subsidies would never have happened without the backing of capitalist power."
...which is not capitalism.
"...which is not capitalism."
Which is 100% capitalism.
Post a Comment