Money, the Root of All Evil

All recent 'bubbles' including the current one in real estate have had two (avoidable) causes. One was the result of tax policies instituted under President Reagan, the other was one of the unfortunate consequences of Globalization. The politics of greed, the basis of these actions, has place the entire middle- and working-classes at risk of becoming the 'second nation' warned of by John Edwards in his bid for the presidency. Both policies have lead to unchecked asset inflation worldwide. The ultimate consequence of this worldwide will be societies of rich and poor, with no middle class, similar to most poor countries today. The poor will be outbid in trying to obtain access to any of the activities or privileges currently enjoyed by our elites and a slowly-dwindling middle class. In trying to participate in any public event the average citizen will simply have not the funds.

Over the past decade or so the prices of admission to the most commonplace of events, like sports events, theater tickets, or just local social activities, have already increased to the point of unaffordability by the general public. Activities which used to be of the order of 5 dollars now cost 25 dollars, too much for many middle class families today. This is thanks to President Reagan's tax policies in the 80s allowing the rich to avoid paying even the government's expenses at that time (even though they were the main beneficiaries of government spending.) Changes in estate taxes during this same period have added to this problem. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. These same policies unfortunately were adopted by the Brits under Margaret Thatcher and later, to a lesser extent, by most other western European nations. Bush Jr. has further supported and extended these policies, justifying tax giveaways to the rich on the discredited supply side 'theories' of the Ronald Reagan administration.

Globalization, a scheme to 'equalize' worker wage levels worldwide, is in the process of driving western workers' wages down to those of the poorest of countries. The low bidders of the entire world will have the privilege of performing the world's labor as the world's population increases and the efficiencies of automation minimize labors’ part in production. For western workers to compete with Chinese and Indian workers today (whose wages are in the 65 cents to a dollar fifty range) would require hourly wages of 3 or 4 dollar at best (regardless of productivity differences.) So eventually these western workers will either have to be supported by the dole, or end up living in the street if they are unlucky enough to not have a friendly relative with a basement available. It is only a matter of time before this sad event takes place, 20 years at most. What will happen with the children of the current middle class will be a real tragedy. In many poor countries 'death squads' have been frequently employed to solve the problem of those unemployed and aggravating street people.

The recent stock market ‘bubbles’ and current real estate one are the direct consequence of these two policies. The rich worldwide with trillions (9+ trillion dollars in U.S. money markets alone) of financial capital, looking for even minimal returns, have participated worldwide in purchasing whatever real estate they could get their hands on, and along with financial institutions (also foreign as well as local), have purchased the (securitized) mortgages underlying most of this same real estate. Thanks to Globalization, American dollars have provided foreigners the funds to participate in this speculation in U.S. real estate and financial assets. They have driven up prices on what should be a home for a family, turned it into a speculative asset in which the actual inhabitant has little equity (only has to pay the interest on an exorbitant loan) while the real owners are the rich throughout the world and the financial institutions who have underwritten them. Unfortunately this speculation by the world's rich have put the banks into the unpleasant position of being the real risk-takers in this enterprise and are inhibiting them from currently making much-needed new loans. When all said and done, the banker took the risk and is now left holding the bag. Wall Street and the bond-rating agencies are just as guilty if not more so, but the rating-agencies have at least not suffered (except in credibility). The Wall-streeters were unfortunately victims as well, apparently believing their own sales pitches.

What needs urgently to be done is to reverse these two policies and remove the excess capital which is the real culprit in this entire mess. This would require a highly-graduated income tax and heavy estate taxes and an end to the consequences of unbridled globalization. Under a democracy, tax policy should be designed to collect the amount necessary and appropriate for the needs of the entire citizenry. Lightly taxed capital gains should be limited to only that amount of capital necessary for real sustainable capital investment. Any remaining capital gains are simply unnecessary and would result in undesirable speculation and foolish consumerism. They should be highly taxed. Estate taxes should be limited to a reasonable amount for remaining heirs, not supportive of the unborn in perpetuity. The current population should not remain in debt to the no longer living. These measures, which may seem unfair or impracticable to many, are simply a variant of those tax policies adopted during the Second World War and continued until the Reagan economic fiasco. Even while under these highly-graduated estate and income taxes, the U.S. became the richest country in the world.

In order to save western workers from the same exploitative wages and substandard lifestyles currently prevalent in S.E. Asian economies, one of two things need be done. The U.S. Government should either require their foreign trading partners to require employers to provide a worldwide living wage and worker- security laws (something the ILO, the labor-regulating agency of the U.N., should have done long ago), or the U.S. government should unilaterally impose import duties to effect the same. The U.S. government's primary duty under the Constitution is to protect the interests of all its own citizens, not the interest of foreign citizens under WTO rules. To argue over 70 percent duties on imports when there are differences of 900 percent in labor rates is truly amusing if t were not so pathetic. The WTO’s ‘free trade rules’, under these conditions, are truly a joke. No decent employer anywhere in the world should be allowed to pay an exploitative wage to its employees. If a worker does his best, working in good faith, he should be entitled to a living wage sufficient to raise and educate a family. Good governments worldwide should accept this responsibility as their paramount goal.

. Without these changes, each year more than $1 trillion (from foreign and U.S. investors) will be added to the mountain of financial asset currently available for investment in the U.S. They will be available to purchase already-overvalued assets causing new 'bubbles' wherever they are invested. Appropriate federal tax policy should limit federal budget deficits, which have been a major cause of this otherwise superfluous capital. 'Fair trade' policies under Globalization should be designed to entirely eliminate those current trade imbalances which have resulted in these destabilizing investments in the U.S. If these policies were implemented, all future speculative crises could be avoided. If not, they will continue to plague the U.S. and world economies, becoming even greater in the future

Government Deficit Spending is America's Last Best Hope for Recovery

It was most amusing for me to see Alan Greenspan explaining on the BBC to an otherwise trusting viewing audience that the world economies would experience severe economic crises every few years as a matter of course, and this was quite 'normal' and inevitable. Although the economies of the world will experience many ups and downs over the years, they are not at all 'normal' but usually the consequence of central bank and government screw-ups. If the government would try to support their average middle- and working-class individuals and not just their rich 'sponsors', future economic crises could be avoided. The government simply must accept the basic realities and paradoxes of capitalism and abstain from following those 'voodoo' economic theories proven time-and-time-again not to have worked as advertised ( but profitable to the rich). If they would simply regulate the economy in accordance with sound economic principles the consequence and extent of future crises would be significantly reduced and workers worldwide could experience the high standard of living that they deserve.

The factor of capitalism most misunderstood is that, if people want to get richer in money terms, someone else must take on debt. Capitalism is all about getting richer. Financial assets are obligations assumed by some second party, individual or institution. There is no invisible genie who borrows from the rich and will magically pay then back in the future from some secret funds source. Rich Republican's claim that they don't want the U.S. government to take on more debt is simply a misunderstanding about what has made them rich. The greatest increases in wealth always occur when governments assume large deficits, most commonly during a war or recession. Private individuals and businesses have limits to the amount of debt they can assume. The U.S. government has fouled its own nest by sitting idly by while Americans lose their jobs, savings, and the ability to take on further debt. Businesses likewise have been put in a position in which they no longer wish to take on debt by investing in the U.S., this situation also caused by government mismanagement of the economy. The U.S. government doesn't have these borrowing limitations and, if it is unwilling to take on more debt, capitalism in the U.S. is in serious trouble.

But of course there are non-financial assets to consider. People get wealthier by buying shares in profitable businesses and in the purchase of other assets such as real estate. In the case of real estate, these assets are limited by nature and have values now primarily based upon speculative demand and far in excess of reasonable valuations. In the case of shares in a going business, value depends upon earnings, which in times of recession normally decline. The wealth of U.S. citizens in this case is limited to its share in the value of going businesses. The U.S. has, for some time, been losing ground in this area due to the deindustrialization of the U.S. economy while jobs and production move offshore. The middle- and working-classes possess few assets of this sort, and real estate was their last substantial asset. We all know how that turned out. This loss of capital is evidenced by international balance of payments accounting which shows the U.S. economy is losing around $700 billion per year in assets. That will continue lacking any government action. In this case, capitalism in the U.S. has not only been stopped dead in its tracks, but what capital assets are remaining will soon be taken over by foreigners.

Both Lord Keynes and Milton Friedman were aware of the fundamental facts underlying a capitalist economic system. If the economy in general and stock markets were to survive and prosper, yearly consumer spending had to increase over the previous period. Likewise the GDP. They both knew this would require a greater money supply. Consumption (and GDP) have held a fairly constant relationship to the money supply over the years by a factor called 'V' (the turnover velocity of money) which varies little over time. According to Friedman's basic theory, called 'monetarism', the only thing necessary to increase consumption was to increase the money supply. That is correct as far as it goes. Friedman simply thought an increase in the amount of bank reserves by the FED would in itself be enough to stimulate the banks to increase their loans to businesses and individuals, thereby spurring increases in spending. He did not contemplate a situation in which the banks would not lend it out or that someone would not be willing or able to borrow it. Keynes knew about the importance of the FED's expansion of the money supply some 40 years before Friedman postulated it. He not only was aware of it, but suggested how it could be done. Keynes knew what our current economists have learned the hard way, that the FED alone could not increase the money supply. Almost half of M1 (the simplest measure of our money supply) is money lent by the banks (creating bank deposits), the rest being cash. For every dollar the FED supplies the banks in terms of reserves, the banks can lend anywhere from 7 to 10 times as much to its potential borrowers, namely businesses, individuals, or the federal government. Lately the FED has provided the money but he banks have not lent it out. This brings us back to the basic problem. If the banks will not extend credit to businesses and private individuals, then the money supply and consumption (and production and profits) will not increase unless government itself borrows it. Lacking this, the U.S. money supply would remain constant and the country would remain in recession. So Keynes solution was that whenever the private sector (businesses and individuals) would or could not go into debt, the only other borrower remaining was the federal government, which would have to assume more debt to keep the economy healthy. The banks are more than happy to lend to the U.S. Government.

The reason that businesses have resisted making substantive investments in the U.S. is two-fold. First and foremost is the fact that the U.S. consumer is plagued by past debts and his job at risk because of the current credit crunch. In addition, actions by the FED under Alan Greenspan, and continued by Ben Bernanke, designed to reduce consumption (and preserve the value of the dollar), had severely damaged the economy. These consisted in successive claims of non-existent inflations 'forcing them' to raise interest rates, which brought on the ever-more-serious recessions leading to the final collapse in the economy. Secondly, foreign competition stimulated by Globalization has made it unprofitable for most businesses to invest in the U.S. U.S. multinationals are borrowing and investing primarily in South- and S.E Asia. Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) in the U.S. are minimal and pretty well limited (80%) to the purchase of going businesses in the U.S. (i.e., little additional foreign capital investment). With wage rates in these Asian countries 10% of those in the U.S., who wouldn't be setting up shop overseas. Hint, the answer is nobody.

Workers in the U.S. have lost their high-paying industrial jobs and have had to accept service sector jobs at considerable decrease in wages. In order to sustain their lifestyles (generally fixed costs assumed when times were good), they had to take on further debt (credit card as well as real estate) to cover this income shortfall. Many have had to cash their IRA's, Keoghs, and 401-Ks as well as saving previously put aside for their retirement and children's education. Now that the middle- and working-classes are reaching insolvency and can't take on further debt, a further increase in spending by them is highly unlikely. So if the political elites, supported by their major propagandist (Fox News), think we can pull out of this recession without government deficit spending they are living in LaLa Land.

Properly regulated deficit spending can create a positive economic environment in which American businesses and workers will be able to resolve their debts and resume consumption and spending. This must include a solution for the problems caused by Globalization and by limitations on Federal Reserve meddling with interest rates (which should depend solely on market conditions). Lacking these government actions, the economy will be entirely dependent on continuing government deficits. That is, if the rich want to increase their wealth they will have to accept some changes in the way the government does business.

For this reason I hope those chronic carpers on Fox News and their paymasters will stop their attacks on government deficit spending and harping on the taxes their children purportedly will be saddled with. If this crisis is not solved, many of their children won't be saddled with high taxes at all. They won't have jobs. The entity previously known as the middle class will likewise be paying little or no income taxes, having had to accept minimal wages in the service sector (or will be a further drag on the economy if unable to find employment at all). Under current tax laws, a family of 4 with a yearly income of $22,000 pays no federal income taxes, and would have little ability to pay for tax increases caused by interest on future government deficits. Unchecked globalization will ultimately result in all those engaged in world commerce to accept wages at this level (or lower). Service sector wages will likewise be adversely affected by the disappearance of previously high-paying jobs in the U.S., in this case producing a valid 'trickle down effect' on incomes. Who then will pay for any and all taxes necessary to run the federal government in the future? The rich, who are resisting increases in current government deficit spending (one of the remedies necessary for recovery), will end up paying for everything! Fox News and their rich patrons will find that they have simply been shooting themselves in the foot with their tirades against current deficits. As the old ad went 'you can pay me now or you can pay me later'. Later may very well be too late.

Globalization and its Contribution to America’s Economic Catastrophe

The promoters of Globalization, in their headlong and single-minded lust for profit, have exhibited one major flaw, a complete ignorance of the basic economic principles underlying capitalism. While marginally lowering prices on products by replacing decently-paid western workers with third world workers at exploitative wages, they have killed the proverbial “goose that laid the golden egg.” The displaced workers, those middle income western wage earners, were the backbone of world consumption. The exploited workers could not buy the products which they created. Now, as his wages are being increasingly undermined by product outsourcing and tariff policies (NAFTA, CAFTA), the previously middle class wage earner is gradually becoming unable to keep up the consumption necessary to support production. Only the rich, beneficiaries of the increased profits generated by these policies, can afford these products. They have the gold but the goose has been cooked. This article explains the phony “principles” supporting Globalization, the reasons for its “success”, and the danger that it represents.

Practically all well-known U.S. economists and policymakers have supported Globalization as if it were the Holy Grail, resulting finally in our current international economic crisis. There were two well-publicized reasons proposed to justify Globalization, and one (secret and undisclosed) which was the real reason for their wholehearted and sycophantic support. One of the former was the concept that free trade under Globalization would end trade competition among nations leading to world peace. The other was based upon an ideological concept derived from one of Ricardo’s economic theories called the Law of Comparative Advantage. This “law” was predicated upon the idea that the world as a whole would benefit when each country produced only those goods that it was most efficient in producing and leaving to other countries those products they excelled in. Both of these concepts have been proven unworkable in actual practice, but the economists and politicians have not given up on them regardless, mainly because they really were only pretexts for Globalization and whether they worked or not was immaterial. Why let reality stand in the way of a good story? The third and real reason that these "professionals" endorsed Globalization was that it was profitable for them to do so. Few writers or economists can propose anything contrary to the interests of the politically connected and be published or promoted. Only writers of inordinate prestige and integrity, such as Naomi Klein and Paul Krugman, can afford to take the risk. Naomi’s The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and Paul’s The Conscience of a Liberal are among the few books which dare to disclose the truth about the U.S. government’s unfair and damaging policies and practices. Conversely, the way to riches is by puffing lazy and incompetent “elites” and touting any program financially rewarding to them. Most honest economists, columnist or reporter will eventually end up poverty-stricken under these circumstances.

In dealing with the premise that world peace would be assured under free trade and Globalization, there is a claim that World War II was caused by excessive tariffs among the combatants causing a lessening of trade and friction between them. In reality, the war in Europe was contested between countries which had considerable friendly trade prior to the war. Germany and Great Britain were major trading partners. In the case of the Pacific conflict, it was not tariffs but an embargo against the Japanese established in response to their aggression against China. Tariffs took no part in the conflict. Imperialism was the culprit in the Pacific as well as in the European conflict. Today, thanks to an economic imperialism over third world countries resulting from policies forced upon them by the IMF (as directed by the U.S.), no country need attack the resource rich countries fought over in the past. For the most part, their assets are already owned by the multinationals, in the interests of the world’s shareholders. Economic Imperialism under Globalization is no less offensive and improper as Imperialism by force.

Another convenient claim, the concept that tariffs established by the U.S., the famous Smoot-Hawley in particular, were the basis of the economic collapse worldwide ultimately leading to the war, was also specious. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff (a Republican tariff) was passed in 1922 and had been in effect without problems for 7 years before the stock market’s collapse. Smoot-Hawley was just the last of a series of high-tariff law in the U.S., simply a continuation of U.S. trade policies prevalent throughout the history of the U.S. and primarily responsible for our great economic successes.

Many countries will be peace loving and friendly to the west as long as they are doing well economically. If not, they can be expected to revert to “uncooperative” competition and to acts offensive to competitor governments. What is happening in Russia today is an example. Public dissatisfaction caused by poor government policies and corruption, but blamed upon the U.S., has resulted in “unfriendly” acts by the current government. The gap between "have" and "have nots" worldwide, regardless of the causes, will tend to cause instability and aggression in many countries. The idea that Globalization will miraculously change this is pure fantasy.

The concept that the entire world will benefit from “free trade”, as derived from Ricardo’s laws, had been soundly refuted prior to the current world economic meltdown. Alan Greenspan in his paean to Globalization, greed, and the Republican Party, The Age of Turbulence, cited “well-documented evidence that competitive markets over the decades have elevated standards of living for the vast majority of Americans and much of the rest of the world”. He apparently had never seen or heard of Detroit, Bethlehem, or any of the eastern cities ruined by the loss of entire industries (textiles, shoes, electronics, steel, autos, et.al.) which had been the direct result of Globalization prior to the current economic debacle. Certainly with the economies of the entire world in disarray he would not now be able to claim this improvement in the standard of living for practically anyone, anywhere.

Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage was based upon the concept that countries share production, with each concentrating on those products for which it had a relative advantage, and relinquishing to its trading partners those which they were best at. It was based upon a balanced trade with each country trading enough of its products to afford those of their trading partners. If this tradeoff was not observed, there was no problem in those days, There being little else to swap for, such as the shares of corporations, government and corporate bonds, commercial properties, and “bundled” assets (such as REITs) which are currently available, the balancing factor was invariably money. The country experiencing a sustained trade imbalance would quickly run out of money, and the trade imbalance would automatically disappear (simultaneously bankrupting the country involved). Ricardo did not even contemplate that happening in his day. No government would survive if it allowed it to happen. Trade had to be based on comparative advantage, not absolute advantage, with a balanced (equal) trade between all countries. Each had its own specialties which their trading partners had to respect. An unfortunate result of this needed “reciprocity” was the forced opening of China to the opium trade by the British in the mid 19th century. Great Britain was running out of sterling having few products to sell to China in exchange for its silk, tea, spices, etc. If citizens of the U.S. had not possessed substantial non-monetary assets, accumulated throughout the history of the U.S., the U.S. money supply would have disappeared long ago, with a corresponding drop in the American citizens’ standard of living. Today, these assets are now being sacrificed for the benefit of foreign corporations, as the trade deficit problem remains unresolved.

In dealing with the “efficiency” issue supposedly leading to such great improvements in worldwide standards of living, much of what has been claimed, such as the actual across-the-board implementation of “free trade” and its purported benefits, is fallacious or distorted. The low cost of foreign goods is not due to fair competition based upon the productive capacity of individual workers, but strictly upon worldwide wage levels determined primarily by international exchange rates. These exchange rates have been consistently manipulated by foreign governments in order to make their tradable products more competitive, a practice called “beggaring thy neighbor” in the past. This practice is a direct and significant violation of “free trade”. Japan’s spectacular economic success over the past 50 years was based upon the establishment of an undervalued Yen (established by U.S. authorities) designed to reestablish it as a powerful U.S. ally in the East. China‘s devaluation of the Yuan in 1993-1994 and peg to the dollar was not contested by the U.S. government although it was obvious that it would allow China to gain (and hold) a long-term supremacy over the U.S. in most manufactures. That too was done to “pacify” China. As a side “benefit”, these devaluations were the principle initiating cause of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, ultimately resulting in drastic losses of assets by other Asian countries, and deterioration of their already exploitative wage rates. If giving up worldwide supremacy in manufacturing (and its associated world economic and political leadership) is the cost of gaining friends, the U.S. has made a splendid bargain. The folly of this policy will become painfully evident when China’s GDP (and consequent military strength) overtakes that of the U.S. (about 2028 according to recent studies).

The major consequence of Globalization and “free trade” will be a lowering of wage rates (and worker and environment standards) to an exploitative one worldwide. Exploitative wage rates are simply rates insufficient to provide workers a "living wage", one that will not compel them to force their children to work and sufficient to provide money for their education. In Asia almost all workers have been exploited because of massive unemployed or underemployed populations in these countries. Each country has been desperately trying to employ its citizens at whatever wage rates are offered, and foreign multinationals (exploiters) have taken advantage of this.

In the interest of fairness for all workers worldwide, “equalizing” tariffs should be imposed by all countries on all imported goods which the home country itself could produce. An “equalizing” duty should be levied on all internationally-traded manufactures at a level designed to compensate for differences in worker’s wages and benefits. Those citizens unsatisfied with the quality or price of products produced locally would be free to buy foreign-made products but would have to pay duties in cases of unfair wage rate differentials. If no substantial wage differentials existed, there would be no duties. An equalization of effective worldwide labor rates was, in fact, a major feature of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act.

The manufacturing advantage enjoyed by current low-wage countries would be eliminated as the leaders of these countries realized that they were contributing funds to foreign governments (in the form of duties) which would not be necessary if they arranged equitable wages and benefits for their own workers. For all countries, local competition should result in the hiring of the most competent workers but at wages appropriate to any worker worldwide. Any worker anywhere, working in good faith, deserves a living wage. Anything short of this should be recognized as obscene. In addition, innovation would increase because new products developed under local competition would augment products developed abroad. The resulting income policies, coupled with fair tax policies, should eventually provide wage levels appropriate for workers worldwide.

One other consideration need hardly be mentioned but has dire consequences. Under Globalization, it will be necessary to “homogenize” the economic policies and social practices of the entire trading world, a relinquishing of sovereignty in many areas of government and society. It will require social-welfare oriented countries and conservative capitalistic ones to find common economic ground; religious and ethnic groups to agree on social policies contrary to long-held beliefs and traditions. To accomplish this will prove to be not only illusory but dangerous. How would the U.S. be better off by adopting those “international” wage policies which have left workers in the rest of the world poverty-stricken and unhealthy?

Globalization is 100 percent baloney. Globaloney, a term coined by Claire Booth Luce more than 60 years ago when it was first proposed, was baloney then, and is baloney now, only packaged in a different wrapper. Each country must be able to choose and support its own culture and be free to independently choose its own interests, pursuits, and way of life. Universal decent and fair trade practices will permit this independence and will do it without sacrificing these sovereign rights. If the U.S. government fails to face up to the consequences of its current policies of “free trade” under Globalization, we can all kiss off the “American way of life” that we have created and been so proud of.

How to Regain Control of Our Government

The following are a few quotes from William Greider's book Who Will Tell The People. "When incumbent officeholders begin to perceive a real threat developing to their power, that is the moment when election politics can begin to become serious and interesting again. When the organized presence of citizens can deprive others of power, all the deeper power relationships surrounding government will be put to risk too." This article will explain how you can win back power from Congress and have representatives interested in your welfare rather than the welfare of the political elites.

If in the coming election the candidates that you are to choose from have been selected by various "special interests" groups, the winner will, when in office, simply do the bidding of these groups without regard for any other interests. If that is the case, what would be the point in voting? Many people believe that this is the case and will either not vote, or vote for a third-party candidate who has no chance of winning, both simply a repudiation of the candidates selected by others. But, in both of these cases, the "winner" will not care a hoot because he is well aware that no matter how disillusioned or angry these voters are, they haven't the power to affect him in any way.



But voters can do something that will make a difference. They have the power to vote the entire Congress out of office, if they vote in concert. They should be doing this whenever they are dissatisfied with the government's performance. They only need vote against all incumbents, whatever their party affiliation.



What the public is missing in this election is that, even if they vote into office a populist like Barack Obama whose intention is to promote policies and actions beneficial to the general public, if the Congress won't go along with his program, Barack will be powerless and ineffective. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, another populist. Jimmy's campaign promises were all frustrated by Congress with the active concurrence of fellow Democrats beholden to their benefactors, those rich and powerful folks who financed their campaigns.



The public has to realize that it must break up the Congress's power blocks before Barack will be able to serve the public in the ways that he has promised. The only way to break up these power blocks is by voting out all incumbents, regardless of party. The remaining part of this article is a reprint of a previous article of mine explaining how this can be done.

How to Win an Election, Any Election

All of us have just about had our fill of unconstitutional and corrupt actions by our representatives in Congress and, considering their current extremely low "favorable rating" from the public, this is an ideal time for the public to take charge and dislodge them from office. This should be done en mass because they are jointly responsible for laws passed on their watch, and all recently passed legislation that I am familiar with has been in the interest of the rich patrons sponsoring their campaigns.

Some will claim that his own representative is serving him well, and will only attempt to toss out the other guys rep. For your "hero" to say that he is not party to this lamentable mess is like Frank James saying he really did not believe in what brother Jesse was doing and tried to prevent him from doing it. Laws are passed(and laws are at times not enforced) with the cooperation of all members of Congress.To protect your own rep simply will not work. The incumbents almost always win, considering that the big money is on their side. The 'democracy' which everyone so enthusiastically extols simply does not exist today for the working classes of the U.S. The sole democratic tool left to the public is the ballot box.

I have a sure-fire method for the people to again gain control over their representatives. It consists of simply voting against any incumbent on the ballot, regardless of party. The last election, won by George Bush with a 3 million vote majority over John Kerry, was contested by less than 57 percent of the qualified voters. More than 90 million qualified citizens failed to vote, mainly because they felt that their votes would not count. This figure roughly corresponding to the number of adult citizens without jobs(i.e., the job "participation rate" of U.S. workers is now around 66 percent (34 percent 'not participating') with another 5 percent 'officially' unemployed). If a person is not employed, he is, by definition 'unemployed'. Only our government can not understand this concept. There are about 85+ million 'unemployed' people of working age now in the U.S. The results of this particular election are typical for most elections, where the winner has less than a 5 percent majority. If only ten percent of these 90 million citizens who failed to vote were to vote against any incumbent he would stand little chance of winning. A simple ten percent increased participation in the Bush/Kerry election could have changed the popular vote margin of 3 million in favor of Bush (a solid majority) to a margin of 6+ million votes in favor of Kerry(a pretty respectable whompin').

If this proposal could become a reality the pols would finally take the public very seriously, that is, if they wanted to be reelected! The sole problem is one of getting these citizens to vote and providing them with a candidate who could win. The fundamental problem for those interested in placing a candidate responsive to the general public in office has always been the choice of an alternative candidate who had a chance of winning. We all now pretty well agree that the incumbent politician's opposition is also one who has his snout firmly affixed to the money trough and in many cases is following the same policies as his opponent.

But the charm of this solution is that it should be applied in every election in which the Congress has failed to do what was promised in its platform or was inherent in its party policies. After a very short time the pols would get tired of serving just one term(losing seniority and committee representation), and start paying attention to the needs of their all their constituents, including the American working classes.

A coordination of candidate selection and election such as this differs little from what the Religious Right has been doing for the Republican party, providing an "en bloc" vote which has biased recent elections enough to get our current pathetic officeholders installed. In the future, when the public becomes aware of their power at the polls, it will be able to select its own candidates for a "peoples party" by setting up sites on the Internet. These sites would collect suggestions for the party's candidates and provide the consensus candidate at election time.

If we all could get behind this movement, we would at last obtain the government we deserve. Other efforts to regain control of Congress, such as that of amending the Constitution under Article V of the Constitution, could well be the ultimate solution but will take time. A project such as this could very well speed up the process. So I encourage all of those voters who have been disregarded or damaged by their current representative to vote in this coming election. Vote for the opponent of the current incumbent or, if he has left office, for the candidate of the opposite party. Encourage all your friends to do likewise. If each of you will do this I believe that we can win back our government in this election.

Causes and Cures for our Current Debt Crisis

It is touching to see Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson getting credit for their proposed solution to the financial crisis we now face, especially since it was caused by policies which they and previous government officials had purposely followed knowing full-well that this current calamity could be the result.

FED chairmen, in particular Alan Greenspan in his erstwhile promotion of the interests of America's rich, have constantly flirted with a depression by employing interest rate and monetary policy practices designed to support an overvalued dollar or to cause a recession in order to reduce purchase of foreign-made goods. The FED, under Mr. Greenspan, has constantly increased interest rates during otherwise normal business cycles, under the pretext of preventing an undesired inflation which he alone supposedly understood (or experienced), when his true interest were in preventing a market-induced devaluation of the dollar. These interest rate increases simply shut down needed business activities and, together with corresponding monetary policies designed to decrease consumption, created systemic weaknesses increasing the possibilities of a depression.

This may seem quite preposterous to you, the reader, so I will briefly explain the reasons for these policies.

When “globalization”, the scheme of multinational corporations to extend the exploitation of laborer's wage rates to the entire world (beginning 30 years ago), began to produce unsustainable trade deficits in the western world there were, practically speaking, only 3 ways to resolve the resulting trade imbalances. They were protection (tariffs, quotas,etc.), a devaluation of the nation's currency, or a recession, which would cause unemployment and a resulting loss of consumer's purchasing power (hopefully for foreign products).

U.S. legislators, in the interests of U.S. multinationals who were manufacturing goods overseas to sell in the U.S. (the ever-increasing outsourced products and services), were “persuaded” to discontinue these tariffs, quotas, subsidies, etc. protective of American industries (a process known as “globalization”). They also were directed by U.S. wealthholders, their sponsors, to resist any devaluation of the dollar, and to cooperate with our trading partners in their efforts to keep their own currency values lower (ignoring the fact that their industries would, as a consequence, gain a major portion of the world's product manufacturing and services.) The sole solution left to resolve the trade deficits , in the opinion of the U.S. policymakers, was to drive the U.S. into what turned out to be a series of low-level recessions. This would not only tend to limit U.S. consumer's purchases of foreign products and services (unfortunately products made in the U.S. as well) and would (presumably) result in a decline in the trade deficits. In this scheme, only the wealthy could afford considerable purchases of foreign-made goods. This would not alone solve the fundamental trade problems, however. The trade imbalances would continue until America's workers could again compete fairly with their foreign counterparts.

Under these policies, U.S. wage rates would be expected to fall. Unfortunately, they would have to fall to around $3/ hour to effect any change in the trade imbalances. It did not happen (and could not happen given living costs in the U.S.). As long as trade protection was not allowed (a cornerstone of globalization), the only solution remaining to correct trade imbalances was for the dollar to depreciate. This solution was resisted by the rich and was not resorted to until recently (and grudgingly). This solution to the trade imbalance was, in effect, done “too little too late” . By having forced serial recessions for 30 years without trade deficit resolution, the middle class in the U.S. had been essentially pauperized by mounting debt. Instead of decreasing consumption during these “recessions” the middle class attempted to “keep up with the Jones” on borrowed money or previous savings. This finally culminated in the sub-prime lending fiasco and current debt crisis. These practices had essentially wiped out any “cushion” of accumulated financial assets, credit card loan limits, and home equity loans, culminating in a $1 trillion credit card debt and extensive non-performing home loans. There is no longer any way to avoid facing the fact that the middle class is no longer able to sustain an adequate consumer demand for a healthy growing economy.

The only solution possible now, short of trade protection policies, is for the government to provide the consumption dollars necessary to sustain a healthy economy which,current tax policy being what it is, will result in substantial deficit spending. Unfortunately, the rich don't like this solution either, now contesting the “last, best, chance” for the survival of a high American standard of living, the proposed bailout. As soon as the rich realize that this “consumption-supporting” deficit will have to be continued indefinitely, now that the middle class's resources have been permanently compromised, they will be even more unwilling to provide this needed financial support. Consequentially, unless a new administration “gets serious” about serving the interests of the general public rather than the short-sighted and ultimately destructive policies demanded by the rich, the U.S. will be facing a never ending decline in it's standard of living ( a fact well understood by Wall Street.)

I have a solution which would eliminate the sub-prime interest rate problem as well as the “BTC” (before the crisis) fiscal deficit as a bonus. U.S. citizens now pay about $3,800 per person more than the citizens of their prosperous (western) trading partners for health care services. This amounts to an outlay of about $1.2 trillion more for our insurance-dominated , “pay for as you go” health services than other western countries citizens pay in their single-pay health systems. The U.S. citizen, as a further insult, experiences a far-lower quality of health care than citizens in these (government administered) “single pay” systems. The U.S. health care system was rated 26 in the quality of health services among the developed western nations by the World Health Organization in 2008. Of the resulting $1.2 trillion excess payments, the U.S. government pays about 40 percent, and the private citizen 60 percent. This amounts to $480 billion from the government (via taxes) and $720 billion from U.S. families, about $500 per month more per family.

By reverting to a single-pay health care system the projected $480 billion fiscal deficit would disappear. With $720 billion more in the pockets of American consumers (and mortgage holders), the proposed $700 billion federal bailout of our financial sector would be unnecessary.
These problems could be solved in a single day by the U.S. congress. They only need to give up the AMA's, ADA's, hospital's, insurance company's, and pharmaceutical companies' more-than-generous “contributions” to their political campaigns and vote for a single-payer health system developed in the interest of all the country's citizens.

An even-more important single law would quickly solve the U.S. trade imbalance (at least eliminating the unfair wage advantage of foreign workers over their their counterparts in the U.S.). The U.S. congress simply needs to promote legislation requiring a worldwide (living) minimum wage for workers producing internationally-traded goods, with a proviso that products of non-complying countries be subject to an “equalizing” tariff based upon wage and benefit differentials. Not only would U.S. and other western countries' trade imbalances disappear, but workers worldwide would benefit. It's time for all good people everywhere to demand a living wage for workers of all countries. Every man working in full faith for 40 hours a week deserves, as a matter of morality and justice, to receive a living wage for himself and his family! Anyone tolerating or condoning less than this should be recognized as an “exploiter” and suffer the disdain of his fellow citizens.