K-Shaped

A K-shaped economy describes an uneven economic recovery where different segments rebound at vastly different rates, like the two diverging lines of the letter 'K': one part (the wealthy, tech sectors) shoots upward with strong growth, while another (lower-income workers, struggling businesses) stagnates or declines further, leading to increased inequality.

This model became prominent after the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting how high-income earners thrived with asset appreciation (stocks, housing) while others faced job losses, stagnant wages, and rising costs, making recovery difficult for many.

Key Characteristics

• Divergent Fortunes: The rich get richer (stock market booms, tech thrives), while the poor and middle class fall further behind (inflation hits hard, wages lag).
• Sectoral Differences: Tech and big-box retailers boom, while hospitality, small businesses, and travel suffer.
• Generational Divide: Older consumers with savings do better; younger generations (Gen Z, Millennials) struggle with debt and living costs.
• Uneven Job Market: High-skill jobs recover quickly; low-wage jobs see slower growth or layoffs.

Causes and Examples

• Pandemic Stimulus: Initial support helped some, but asset appreciation benefited the wealthy most.
• Tech Dominance: Big tech companies thrived with remote work and digital services, increasing their market power.
• Inflation & Interest Rates: High inflation erodes lower incomes, while rising rates impact borrowing for essentials.

Implications & Concerns

• Increased Inequality: Widens the wealth gap, creating social and political tension.
• Unsustainable Growth: Relies heavily on the wealthy, which isn't sustainable if broad spending dries up.
• Policy Challenges: Makes targeted stimulus difficult and requires broader fiscal policy changes, not just central bank action.

Find a chapter

It's The Humanity, Stupid

The money term: Surplus Humans

Over the next 20 years or so, we'll be making decisions on whether or not most people are even necessary.

And from what we've seen recently - the amorality of social media's use of algorithms - it does not bode well to leave those decisions to lizards like Mark Zuckerberg.

Aeon:

Work means everything to us Americans. For centuries – since, say, 1650 – we’ve believed that it builds character (punctuality, initiative, honesty, self-discipline, and so forth). We’ve also believed that the market in labour, where we go to find work, has been relatively efficient in allocating opportunities and incomes. And we’ve believed that, even if it sucks, a job gives meaning, purpose and structure to our everyday lives – at any rate, we’re pretty sure that it gets us out of bed, pays the bills, makes us feel responsible, and keeps us away from daytime TV.

These beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous, because there’s not enough work to go around, and what there is of it won’t pay the bills – unless of course you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street banker, becoming a gangster either way.

These days, everybody from Left to Right – from the economist Dean Baker to the social scientist Arthur C Brooks, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump – addresses this breakdown of the labour market by advocating ‘full employment’, as if having a job is self-evidently a good thing, no matter how dangerous, demanding or demeaning it is. But ‘full employment’ is not the way to restore our faith in hard work, or in playing by the rules, or in whatever else sounds good. The official unemployment rate in the United States is already below 6 per cent, which is pretty close to what economists used to call ‘full employment’, but income inequality hasn’t changed a bit. Shitty jobs for everyone won’t solve any social problems we now face.

Don’t take my word for it, look at the numbers. Already a fourth of the adults actually employed in the US are paid wages lower than would lift them above the official poverty line – and so a fifth of American children live in poverty. Almost half of employed adults in this country are eligible for food stamps (most of those who are eligible don’t apply). The market in labour has broken down, along with most others.

Those jobs that disappeared in the Great Recession just aren’t coming back, regardless of what the unemployment rate tells you – the net gain in jobs since 2000 still stands at zero – and if they do return from the dead, they’ll be zombies, those contingent, part-time or minimum-wage jobs where the bosses shuffle your shift from week to week: welcome to Wal-Mart, where food stamps are a benefit.

And don’t tell me that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour solves the problem. No one can doubt the moral significance of the movement. But at this rate of pay, you pass the official poverty line only after working 29 hours a week. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. Working a 40-hour week, you would have to make $10 an hour to reach the official poverty line. What, exactly, is the point of earning a paycheck that isn’t a living wage, except to prove that you have a work ethic?

But, wait, isn’t our present dilemma just a passing phase of the business cycle? What about the job market of the future? Haven’t the doomsayers, those damn Malthusians, always been proved wrong by rising productivity, new fields of enterprise, new economic opportunities? Well, yeah – until now, these times. The measurable trends of the past half-century, and the plausible projections for the next half-century, are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as dismal science or ideological hokum. They look like the data on climate change – you can deny them if you like, but you’ll sound like a moron when you do.

For example, the Oxford economists who study employment trends tell us that almost half of existing jobs, including those involving ‘non-routine cognitive tasks’ – you know, like thinking – are at risk of death by computerisation within 20 years. They’re elaborating on conclusions reached by two MIT economists in the book Race Against the Machine (2011). Meanwhile, the Silicon Valley types who give TED talks have started speaking of ‘surplus humans’ as a result of the same process – cybernated production. Rise of the Robots, a new book that cites these very sources, is social science, not science fiction.

So this Great Recession of ours – don’t kid yourself, it ain’t over – is a moral crisis as well as an economic catastrophe. You might even say it’s a spiritual impasse, because it makes us ask what social scaffolding other than work will permit the construction of character – or whether character itself is something we must aspire to. But that is why it’s also an intellectual opportunity: it forces us to imagine a world in which the job no longer builds our character, determines our incomes or dominates our daily lives.

In short, it lets us say: enough already. Fuck work.

Certainly this crisis makes us ask: what comes after work? What would you do without your job as the external discipline that organises your waking life – as the social imperative that gets you up and on your way to the factory, the office, the store, the warehouse, the restaurant, wherever you work and, no matter how much you hate it, keeps you coming back? What would you do if you didn’t have to work to receive an income?

And what would society and civilisation be like if we didn’t have to ‘earn’ a living – if leisure was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or volunteer to teach children in less-developed places, such as Mississippi? Or smoke weed and watch reality TV all day?

I’m not proposing a fancy thought experiment here. By now these are practical questions because there aren’t enough jobs. So it’s time we asked even more practical questions. How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it ethical? If you were raised to believe that work is the index of your value to society – as most of us were – would it feel like cheating to get something for nothing?

We already have some provisional answers because we’re all on the dole, more or less. The fastest growing component of household income since 1959 has been ‘transfer payments’ from government. By the turn of the 21st century, 20 per cent of all household income came from this source – from what is otherwise known as welfare or ‘entitlements’. Without this income supplement, half of the adults with full-time jobs would live below the poverty line, and most working Americans would be eligible for food stamps.

But are these transfer payments and ‘entitlements’ affordable, in either economic or moral terms? By continuing and enlarging them, do we subsidise sloth, or do we enrich a debate on the rudiments of the good life?

Transfer payments or ‘entitlements’, not to mention Wall Street bonuses (talk about getting something for nothing) have taught us how to detach the receipt of income from the production of goods, but now, in plain view of the end of work, the lesson needs rethinking. No matter how you calculate the federal budget, we can afford to be our brother’s keeper. The real question is not whether but how we choose to be.

I know what you’re thinking – we can’t afford this! But yeah, we can, very easily. We raise the arbitrary lid on the Social Security contribution, which now stands at $127,200, and we raise taxes on corporate income, reversing the Reagan Revolution. These two steps solve a fake fiscal problem and create an economic surplus where we now can measure a moral deficit.

Of course, you will say – along with every economist from Dean Baker to Greg Mankiw, Left to Right – that raising taxes on corporate income is a disincentive to investment and thus job creation. Or that it will drive corporations overseas, where taxes are lower.

But in fact raising taxes on corporate income can’t have these effects.

Let’s work backward. Corporations have been ‘multinational’ for quite some time. In the 1970s and ’80s, before Ronald Reagan’s signature tax cuts took effect, approximately 60 per cent of manufactured imported goods were produced offshore, overseas, by US companies. That percentage has risen since then, but not by much.

Chinese workers aren’t the problem – the homeless, aimless idiocy of corporate accounting is. That is why the Citizens United decision of 2010 applying freedom of speech regulations to campaign spending is hilarious. Money isn’t speech, any more than noise is. The Supreme Court has conjured a living being, a new person, from the remains of the common law, creating a real world more frightening than its cinematic equivalent: say, Frankenstein, Blade Runner or, more recently, Transformers.

But the bottom line is this. Most jobs aren’t created by private, corporate investment, so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment. You heard me right. Since the 1920s, economic growth has happened even though net private investment has atrophied. What does that mean? It means that profits are pointless except as a way of announcing to your stockholders (and hostile takeover specialists) that your company is a going concern, a thriving business. You don’t need profits to ‘reinvest’, to finance the expansion of your company’s workforce or output, as the recent history of Apple and most other corporations has amply demonstrated.

So investment decisions by CEOs have only a marginal effect on employment. Taxing the profits of corporations to finance a welfare state that permits us to love our neighbours and to be our brothers’ keeper is not an economic problem. It’s something else – it’s an intellectual issue, a moral conundrum.

When we place our faith in hard work, we’re wishing for the creation of character; but we’re also hoping, or expecting, that the labour market will allocate incomes fairly and rationally. And there’s the rub, they do go together. Character can be created on the job only when we can see that there’s an intelligible, justifiable relation between past effort, learned skills and present reward. When I see that your income is completely out of proportion to your production of real value, of durable goods the rest of us can use and appreciate (and by ‘durable’ I don’t mean just material things), I begin to doubt that character is a consequence of hard work.

When I see, for example, that you’re making millions by laundering drug-cartel money (HSBC), or pushing bad paper on mutual fund managers (AIG, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, Citibank), or preying on low-income borrowers (Bank of America), or buying votes in Congress (all of the above) – just business as usual on Wall Street – while I’m barely making ends meet from the earnings of my full-time job, I realise that my participation in the labour market is irrational. I know that building my character through work is stupid because crime pays. I might as well become a gangster like you.

That’s why an economic crisis such as the Great Recession is also a moral problem, a spiritual impasse – and an intellectual opportunity. We’ve placed so many bets on the social, cultural and ethical import of work that when the labour market fails, as it so spectacularly has, we’re at a loss to explain what happened, or to orient ourselves to a different set of meanings for work and for markets.

And by ‘we’ I mean pretty much all of us, Left to Right, because everybody wants to put Americans back to work, one way or another – ‘full employment’ is the goal of Right-wing politicians no less than Left-wing economists. The differences between them are over means, not ends, and those ends include intangibles such as the acquisition of character.

Which is to say that everybody has doubled down on the benefits of work just as it reaches a vanishing point. Securing ‘full employment’ has become a bipartisan goal at the very moment it has become both impossible and unnecessary. Sort of like securing slavery in the 1850s or segregation in the 1950s.

Why?

Because work means everything to us inhabitants of modern market societies – regardless of whether it still produces solid character and allocates incomes rationally, and quite apart from the need to make a living. It’s been the medium of most of our thinking about the good life since Plato correlated craftsmanship and the possibility of ideas as such. It’s been our way of defying death, by making and repairing the durable things, the significant things we know will last beyond our allotted time on earth because they teach us, as we make or repair them, that the world beyond us – the world before and after us – has its own reality principles.

Think about the scope of this idea. Work has been a way of demonstrating differences between males and females, for example by merging the meanings of fatherhood and ‘breadwinner’, and then, more recently, prying them apart. Since the 17th century, masculinity and femininity have been defined – not necessarily achieved – by their places in a moral economy, as working men who got paid wages for their production of value on the job, or as working women who got paid nothing for their production and maintenance of families. Of course, these definitions are now changing, as the meaning of ‘family’ changes, along with profound and parallel changes in the labour market – the entry of women is just one of those – and in attitudes toward sexuality.

When work disappears, the genders produced by the labour market are blurred. When socially necessary labour declines, what we once called women’s work – education, healthcare, service – becomes our basic industry, not a ‘tertiary’ dimension of the measurable economy. The labour of love, caring for one another and learning how to be our brother’s keeper – socially beneficial labour – becomes not merely possible but eminently necessary, and not just within families, where affection is routinely available. No, I mean out there, in the wide, wide world.

Work has also been the American way of producing ‘racial capitalism’, as the historians now call it, by means of slave labour, convict labour, sharecropping, then segregated labour markets – in other words, a ‘free enterprise system’ built on the ruins of black bodies, an economic edifice animated, saturated and determined by racism. There never was a free market in labour in these united states. Like every other market, it was always hedged by lawful, systematic discrimination against black folk. You might even say that this hedged market produced the still-deployed stereotypes of African-American laziness, by excluding black workers from remunerative employment, confining them to the ghettos of the eight-hour day.

And yet, and yet. Though work has often entailed subjugation, obedience and hierarchy (see above), it’s also where many of us, probably most of us, have consistently expressed our deepest human desire, to be free of externally imposed authority or obligation, to be self-sufficient. We have defined ourselves for centuries by what we do, by what we produce.

But by now we must know that this definition of ourselves entails the principle of productivity – from each according to his abilities, to each according to his creation of real value through work – and commits us to the inane idea that we’re worth only as much as the labour market can register, as a price. By now we must also know that this principle plots a certain course to endless growth and its faithful attendant, environmental degradation.

Until now, the principle of productivity has functioned as the reality principle that made the American Dream seem plausible. ‘Work hard, play by the rules, get ahead’, or, ‘You get what you pay for, you make your own way, you rightly receive what you’ve honestly earned’ – such homilies and exhortations used to make sense of the world. At any rate they didn’t sound delusional. By now they do.

Adherence to the principle of productivity therefore threatens public health as well as the planet (actually, these are the same thing). By committing us to what is impossible, it makes for madness. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton said something like this when he explained anomalous mortality rates among white people in the Bible Belt by claiming that they’ve ‘lost the narrative of their lives’ – by suggesting that they’ve lost faith in the American Dream. For them, the work ethic is a death sentence because they can’t live by it.

So the impending end of work raises the most fundamental questions about what it means to be human. To begin with, what purposes could we choose if the job – economic necessity – didn’t consume most of our waking hours and creative energies? What evident yet unknown possibilities would then appear? How would human nature itself change as the ancient, aristocratic privilege of leisure becomes the birthright of human beings as such?

Sigmund Freud insisted that love and work were the essential ingredients of healthy human being. Of course he was right. But can love survive the end of work as the willing partner of the good life? Can we let people get something for nothing and still treat them as our brothers and sisters – as members of a beloved community? Can you imagine the moment when you’ve just met an attractive stranger at a party, or you’re online looking for someone, anyone, but you don’t ask: ‘So, what do you do?’

We won’t have any answers until we acknowledge that work now means everything to us – and that hereafter it can’t.

The Root Principles

I'm a Capitalist because god's a Capitalist.

Capitalism is a close analog for how the world actually operates.

I have to establish a cycle of spending and profit and investment in order to stay alive.

I have to take in a quantity of calories sufficient to fuel the work I have to do as I go out and get my next meal.

That's the basic premise, and it works very well, but that's not all there is to it.

Unfortunately, way too any of us believe that is, in fact, all there is to it.

I'll forego most of the weird permutations and complicating factors, and just stick to me as an individual self-contained unit.

I think that part of my analogy makes perfect sense, but it lacks one vital consideration: Recognition of the absolute need for appropriate regulation - cuz god built regulation into everything.

Like I said before, I need fuel. Blood Sugar is a pretty basic fuel, and it's one thing I get plenty of from the food I eat. I have to have it so I can do the work.

So blood sugar is a mighty good thing, unless I get too much of it. So god gave me a pancreas to regulate my Blood Sugar levels. Without that regulation, I die.

I need a way to regulate my body temperature, so I have a hypothalamus.

I need to regulate my circadian rhythms, so I have a pineal gland.

I need to regulate my breathing and my heartbeat and my eye-blink and a whole metric shit-ton of other things so that all my different systems are functioning in a way that fits all the pieces together so I can go out and do the fucking work and sustain not only myself but everything else I need to sustain myself.

OK. So all of that micro thing leads in to all of this macro thing -

From Scott Galloway - Professor Of Marketing, NYU Stern:

Yet most successful capitalist systems acknowledge that without rule of law, empathy, and redistribution of income, we lose the script. The purpose of an economy is to build a robust middle class. We have, traditionally, elected leaders who cut the lower branches off trees to ensure other saplings get sunlight. There is less and less sunlight. It’s never been easier to become a billionaire, or harder to become a millionaire.

The uber-wealthy paid a tax rate of 70% in the fifties, 47% in the eighties, and 23% at present — a lower tax rate than the middle class. Taxes on the poor and middle class have largely stayed the same. We’ve exploded the debt so rich people pay less tax. If money is the transfer of work and time, we’ve decided our kids will need to work more in the future, and spend less time with their families, so wealthy people can pay lower taxes today. If that sounds immoral, trust your instincts.

It feels as if something has changed. Gerrymandering, money in politics, lack of a shared experience among Americans, social-media-fueled rage, and an idolatry of innovators have led to a faustian bargain: the innovators (lords) capture the majority of the gains, and the 99% (serfs) get an awesome phone, a $4,000 TV, great original scripted television, and Mandalorian action figures delivered within 24 hours. Everybody gets a taste of the innovators’ nose candy and can buy shares in Amazon. Everyone has heard about someone whose daughter works at Google and bought her parents a house.

The biggest losers of the decade are the unremarkables. Our society used to give remarkable opportunities to unremarkable kids and young adults. Some of the crowding out of unremarkable white males, including myself, is a good thing. More women are going to college, and remarkable kids from low-income neighborhoods get opportunities. But a middle-class kid who doesn’t learn to code Python or speak Mandarin can soon find she is not “tracking” and can’t catch up.

• I have intimate experience with being unremarkable:
• Graduated public high school with a 3.2 GPA and 1130 SAT (85%).
• Admitted, on appeal, to UCLA, academic probation 4 times, subject to dismissal twice, 2.27 GPA. 
• Landed a job at Morgan Stanley in Fixed Income Group. (How? I interview well and lied about my grades.)
• Admitted to UC Berkeley Haas (yes, with a 2.27 undergrad GPA).
• Have started several businesses since graduation; most have gone sideways or failed.

My wins were businesses that sold for between $28 million (Prophet) and $160 million (L2). The firm that was sold for $160 million, my VCs didn’t want to sell, as they felt there was an opportunity to go “bigger.” This is emblematic of our lottery / Hunger Games economy, where the gestalt is to go big or die trying. This creates a small class of uber-winners and many more people who wake up at 40 with no economic security or prospects. It’s “go big or go home.” Deaths of despair are skyrocketing, and the innovation ecosystem feeds it.

We have to understand - and never fucking forget - that once in a while we have to step in and rescue Capitalism from the Capitalists.

Crying Babies And Chained CPI

When legend overtakes history, print the legend.

Here it comes. Cult45 knows it has nothing but "the Trump economy" to run on. They also know that there's no good news in a soaring Dow Jones average that benefits only those at the top.

So what do you do when you can't get the numbers to add up the way you need them to add up? Just apply a slight variation to Daddy State Awareness rules 4 & 5:

• Change the meaning of words
• Change history

They're changing the numbers. When your policies are bust and you become desperate to placate the rubes, just pretend those policies are working.

Too many people living in poverty? All you have to do is redefine the Poverty Threshold, and presto-change-o poof - "Millions of Americans lifted out of poverty by the awesomely awesome awesomeness of President Trump's enormous and powerful and tremendously manly manhood grabbing the economy by the pussy and blah blah blah".

"And oh yeah - BTW - if it's not working for you, then it's your own fault - fuckin' loser."

Beau Of The Fifth Column - Justin King:

• 48% of Americans say they can't find jobs that pay a living wage.
• 42% say they're not keeping up with their credit card payments
• 137 million struggle with healthcare costs
• 80% say they're living paycheck-to-paycheck, and a $400 emergency would be catastrophic.

The Yakov Smirnoff Event Horizon is fast approaching:

We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.

Last Week Tonight

John Oliver reminds us about a future that's impossible for us even to imagine.

I think I can confirm that the countdown to Zardoz is now well underway.

Everybody Plays The Fool

...sometimes. 

No exception to the rule.
It may factual; may be cruel,
but everybody plays the fool.

From Early 2018 - Renee Elliott

The New Economy

...which isn't new at all - this shit's been going on for 40 years.

Axios:

Very few Americans have enjoyed steadily rising pay beyond inflation over the last couple of decades, a shift from prior years in which the working and middle classes enjoyed broad-based wage gains as the economy expanded.

Why it matters: Now, executives of big U.S. companies suggest that the days of most people getting a pay raise are over, and that they also plan to reduce their work forces further.

Quick take: This was rare, candid and bracing talk from executives atop corporate America, made at a conference Thursday at the Dallas Fed. The message is that Americans should stop waiting for across-the-board pay hikes coinciding with higher corporate profit; to cash in, workers will need to shift to higher-skilled jobs that command more income.

Troy Taylor, CEO of the Coke franchise for Florida, said he is currently adding employees with the idea of later reducing the staff over time "as we invest in automation." Those being hired: technically-skilled people. "It's highly technical just being a driver," he said.
The moderator asked the panel whether there would be broad-based wage gains again. "It's just not going to happen," Taylor said. The gains would go mostly to technically-skilled employees, he said. As for a general raise? "Absolutely not in my business," he said.
John Stephens, chief financial officer at AT&T, said 20% of the company's employees are call-center workers. He said he doesn't need that many. In addition, he added, "I don't need that many guys to install coaxial cables."

Because of the changes coming, AT&T is pushing employees to take nano-degree programs to prepare them for other jobs — either at AT&T or elsewhere.

The View From Out There

Holding Hillary's feet to the fire is a political absolute.

We can fix this.

What's Wrong Here?

Steven Rosenfeld interviewing David Cay Johnston over at AlterNet:

“Imagine that you are a mortgage lender. Are you going to lend people money for 30 years if they don’t have the security of employment?” Johnston said, offering an example of how the successful push by the technology sector to undermine and overturn the labor laws created during the New Deal are tilting too far toward piecemeal purveyors and will create new instability.

“People are working without salary, benefits, and the stability to buy a house and raise a family,” he said, saying that the blame can be placed at the foot of high-tech lobbyists who have donated to congressional campaigns and federal officeholders who subsequently loosened federal laws to their benefit.

Meanwhile, according to Pew’s New Digital Economy report, 61 percent of Americans have never heard of “crowdfunding,” 73 percent are not familiar with the “sharing economy,” and 89 percent have never heard of the “gig economy.”

The big picture painted by Johnston, who is a registered Republican but schooled in the belief that business prospers when wages and benefits are reliable and income is spent locally, was the fundamentals of middle-class stability are being further eroded by a new technology-based oligarchy. Despite all the hip apps and marketing, gig economy profits are only going to executives while the jobs offered are intrinsically unstable, fiscally unpredictable and most of the risk and expense are placed on contract workers.

 But not to worry, Oligarchs - the great American Intellect Deficit is forever on your side:

Meanwhile, according to Pew’s New Digital Economy report, 61 percent of Americans have never heard of “crowdfunding,” 73 percent are not familiar with the “sharing economy,” and 89 percent have never heard of the “gig economy.”

 

Think Of Something Better

And that kinda goes with a piece at WaPo:

The U.S. suicide rate has increased sharply since the turn of the century, led by an even greater rise among middle-aged white people, particularly women, according to federal data released Friday.

Last decade’s severe recession, more drug addiction, “gray divorce,” increased social isolation, and even the rise of the Internet and social media may have contributed to the growth in suicide, according to a variety of people who study the issue.

But economic distress — and dashed hopes generally — may underpin some of the increase, particularly for middle-aged white people. The data showed a 1 percent annual increase in suicide between 1999 and 2006 but a 2 percent yearly hike after that, as the economy deteriorated, unemployment skyrocketed and millions lost their homes.

“People [were] growing up with a certain expectation . . . and the Great Recession and other things have really changed that,” said Julie A. Phillips, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University who studies the demography of suicide. “Things aren’t panning out the way people expect. I feel for sure that has had an effect.”

Today's Five

Today's Weird

On a tip from my brother, I went over to Fandango to look at the trailer for a new movie called Spotlight.  I clicked on the start arrow and ended up having to see 2 video ads before I got to the trailer.  

So, in order to watch the commercial for the movie - it's a commercial; I went in search of a commercial because I wanted to see a commercial.  And as if that's not bad enough, I had to sit thru a coupla commercials I didn't wanna see before they'd let me see the commercial I did wanna see.

I'm trying to decide if I'm a little bummed and/or aggravated at the extreme levels of monetization going on, or if I'm more than a little impressed that somebody's figured out just how captive we are to this kinda crap.

Or maybe I'm just pissed that I'm willing to put up with the whole mess.  My head hurts - I may start drinking early today.

New Concept

New to me anyway - Coercive Engineered Migration: The use of internal upheaval in one country to force the populations to move to another country in an attempt to destabilize that other country's economy and/or government.

This is Russia Today, so grains of salt are in order.  That said, differing perspectives are generally a plus when trying to figure out just what the fuck is actually going on here.

hat tip = Facebook pal DR

The Golden Arrow

A classic from 2007:

Special note 1: starting at about 02:15, she makes the point that among the 100 biggest economies in the world, 51 of 'em are Corporations - 8 years ago in 2007.  

Things have "improved" since then, with the number of Corporations in those top 100 spots dwindling to 37 (as of about 2012 or 14).  So, OK, but take a look at how the smart money has been playing its hand of late, and you might notice that the power those companies can wield in terms of controlling interests in governments has increased (by orders of magnitude me thinks) - so the actual number of dollars in those "economies" isn't as significant as the fact that they've been very busily ensuring themselves of a reliable military capability (eg).

And how do they do that?  Well, in terms that are admittedly kinda simplistic, they don't have to own the whole government when they can own several of the key people who run the government.

Out of these 10 randomly selected folks: John McCain, Bruce Rauner, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Dianne Feinstein, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Tom Cotton and Jack Lew - which ones do you think would go against the opinions of the people who spent the money to put them in their positions of power in the first place?

Special note 2: Externalizing The Costs - about 08:15 - is where she addresses the bullshit notions of Supply Side Economics.

Anyway, what really and truly bugs me is the fact that we're still not talking about sustainability as a guiding principle.  I can see some efforts here and there, but it looks more like a fashion thing than it does a real shift in how we do things.

Change is scary, but the like the man said, it's either change or die.  So yeah.

Flipping The Message

A while back, Cadillac ran this ad aimed at the Douche Bucket demographic:




Here's an Answer Ad from Ford:



The world is what we make it, kids.

America - Made In China

"American Icon" has become the perfect realization of style over substance; that the symbol is now more important than whatever the symbol is supposed to represent.

The uniforms worn by the 2012 US Olympic Team were made in China.  That's not news, of course, but when I ponder that one, it seems more than a little warped that we just let it go by, with the only result of the complaints and pushback being that the winter team unis were "American Made" (and just look how that turned out), while the stampede of jobs to foreign locations continues not only unrestrained but encouraged; and even "required" under the interpretation of certain laws.

I realize I'm a fogey at this point in time, and it's always a possibility I'm worrying about a few BBs in a boxcar but does it really mean nothing to anyone that we don't do anything other than "manage the brand" anymore?  We're being sold a pocketful of mumbles.

Made In China:

Torches And Pitch Forks

...coming soon to a gated community near you.

Wall Street On Parade (10-23-13):

Yesterday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a very weak jobs number: just 148,000 new nonfarm jobs had been added by employers in September. To the rational mind, an appropriate reaction in the stock market would have been to sell off on the basis that the economy remains weak. Instead, the Standard and Poor’s 500 hit a new record, closing at an all time high of 1,754.67.

The general thesis to explain this reaction is that today’s Wall Street is running a racket similar to Lance Armstrong. It’s on a heavy doping regimen in the form of the $85 billion a month that the Federal Reserve is funneling into the markets through the purchase from Wall Street of U.S. Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities. When the Fed buys those instruments, it forces $85 billion of cash each month into the hands of traders to deploy into higher risk assets – stocks, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), stock futures and what have you, artificially forcing the market higher.

--and--

The 401(k) is the mechanism that created the subliminal mindset that what’s good for Wall Street is good for Main Street. The hard reality is that the top 5 percent of the wealthiest Americans own 60 percent of stocks.

More and more people being left with less and less, will eventually understand they have nothing to lose by storming the barricades and taking whatever they want.

Lying Liars

...and their doofus constituents - this is practically the very definition of Co-Enabling.

From The National Memo, via Little Green Footballs:

The deficit is down 37.6 percent for the first 10 months of the 2013 budget year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But a new survey conducted by Google at Paul Krugman’s request finds that more than 50 percent of Americans think it’s still growing.

Just another solid example of Deliberate Ignorance, fueled by the cynical manipulations of certain Coin-Operated Politicians who say they only want the very best for us - and have managed to convince significant numbers of people that volunteering to wear the shackles is what sets them free.

When almost 60% of us believe exactly the opposite of what is true; when the facts can be discovered by spending a lousy 90 seconds with Google; don't we have to think maybe there's something wrong?

Today - Again

35 years ago, I was pretty anti-union.  I tho't they'd had their day; they'd been useful and good once upon a time, but they'd become too big and too powerful (therefore corrupt), and so they needed to be reined in.  I don't think I was wrong as far as that particular tho't was concerned at that particular time.  What makes it all wrong now is that unions have been beat back and beat down for so long, that we're seeing all of the bad shit happen that the unions warned us would happen if we abandoned the unions altogether, rather than just getting things back into balance.

So, basically, what's happening is that the American labor force is being reduced to the standards of the rest of the world, when what we used to hold out as a primary goal was the raising of labor standards in those other countries to be more in line with our own.

What I'm having the most trouble understanding is why we think downward pressure on wages and prices is a good thing when we're supposed to be the level-headed-clear-eyed capitalists who understand that exactly the opposite is what makes the whole thing actually work.

From Bill Moyers:

Today, a single parent earning minimum wage takes home $15,080 a year. That’s $3,400 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. President Obama noted the statistic in his State of the Union Address — “That’s wrong,” he said, calling for an increase in the minimum wage to $9 an hour because “in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.”

A "small" example of the relationships between Unions, Wages and Outcomes by way of Addicting Info:

In the current anti-union climate in the U.S., there may not be any group of unions that has been singled out for more criticism than teachers’ unions. Unions such as the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have been blamed by politicians, think tanks, and the public for everything from low student achievement to blocking proposed education reforms.

However, despite claims from some quarters that unions are a large part of the problem with American public education, there is ample evidence that teachers’ unions are a vital piece of the education puzzle, and that students benefit from their existence.

If I pay the worker in Laos a whopping 3 bucks a day to make toasters, then I can sell a toaster to you for 10 or 12 bucks (instead of 30 or 40), which means I can pay you less for whatever you do (like teaching?), which means I can keep more for myself.

Like I said above, oddly enough it works (and works better for more people) when we do it the other way around, but apparently that's just too complicated for the geniuses being churned out by American MBA mills.  They aren't learning Fair Practice or Business Ethics or Mutual Advantage or anything else that doesn't fit in with the Imperial Predator Model of commerce in the 21st century - which (also oddly enough) fits perfectly with what we know about how things were done 65 years ago, and 100 years ago, and 150 years ago, and 250 years ago; as far back as you care to look.

Anyway, we said we were gonna be different.  So let's be different.

Yeesh

A recent facebook exchange:

Yeah - there ya go - that third comment is kinda the whole thing in a nutshell, ain't it?Just retire and enjoy life - cuz doesn't everybody own a company they can sell for a jillion dollars, or whatever they think they'll need for their retirement?  You deserve it, because you have it.  And if you don't have it then you don't deserve anything because you're just too fuckin' stupid.

I'd really like to think 'Michael' is just trying to be jovial; or it's his idea of irony or some such(?)

I guess maybe I'm hoping he really doesn't know what a shit stained bag of cat puke  that comment makes him out to be.

But then, how can it be better if he doesn't actually know that saying something like that makes him a total goddamned dick spit?