via Beyond The Beyond by Bruce Sterling on 12/31/10
*Goggles that never quite work. Treating cockroach phobia. Hey yeah, have at it!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Pink Floyd’s Space Odyssey
via Dangerous Minds by Marc Campbell on 12/30/10
Pink Floyd’s ‘Echoes” synchronized with the final 23 minutes of 2001:A Space Odyssey is good for the mind and soul.
Over the years rumors had it that Pink Floyd created “Echoes” as an unofficial soundtrack for the last segment of 2001 ( “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite”). It’s a nice thought, but not true. That the song and film work so nicely together is just a happy accident.
While videos of the Floyd/Kubrick mashup have been around for awhile, this version is the best I’ve seen. Enjoy it in all of its widescreen glory.
{extended}
The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
via Climate Progress by Joe on 12/30/10
Welcome to the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.
2010 saw widespread and growing evidence of rapidly warming global climate and strengthening scientific understanding of how humans are contributing to climate change. Yet on the policy front, little happened to stem the growing emissions of greenhouse gases or to help societies prepare for increasingly severe negative climate impacts, including now unavoidable changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, sea-level rise, snowpack, glacial extent, Arctic sea ice, and more. These physical impacts will lead to sharply increased disease, military and economic instabilities, food and water shortages, and extreme weather events, among other things. Without appropriate risk management action, the United States will be hit hard. There is no safe haven. Yet confusion and uncertainty about climate change remain high in the minds of too many members of the public and Congress.
Why? In large part because of a concerted, coordinated, aggressive campaign by a small group of well-funded climate change deniers and contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science. These efforts have been successful in sowing confusion and delaying action – just as the same tactics were successful in delaying efforts to tackle tobacco’s health risks.
To counter this campaign of disinformation, we are issuing the first in what may become a series of awards for the most egregious Climate B.S.* of the Year. In preparing the list of nominees, suggestions were received from around the world and a panel of reviewers – all scientists or climate communicators – waded through them. We present here the top five nominees and the winner of the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.
Fifth Place. Climate B.S. and misrepresentations presented by Fox “News.”
There are many examples of bad science, misrepresentations, omissions of facts, and distortions of climate reality coming from Fox “News” (far too many to list here, but we note that Joe Romm just gave Fox his 2010 Citizen Kane Award for “non-excellence in journalism” for their misrepresentations of climate science). It seems that Fox has now made it their policy to deny the reality of climate change and has told its reporters to misreport or cast doubt on the science. This policy of disinformation was implemented by Fox News executive Bill Sammon, who ordered staff to cast doubt on climate data in a memo revealed this month. Fox’s political commentators have long used this tactic in their one-sided and biased discussions on climate change but Sammon’s memo seems to direct News staff to slant reporting in direct contradiction to what the scientific facts and scientists actually say.
Fourth Place. Misleading or false testimony to Congress and policymakers about climate change.
While Congress held more hearings in 2010 on climate change than in other recent years, these hearings elicited some astounding testimonies submitted by climate deniers and skeptics filled with false and misleading statements about climate science and total B.S. Examples?
Long-time climate change skeptic Patrick Michaels testified before the House Science and Technology Committee and misrepresented the scientific understanding of the human role in climate change and the well-understood effects of fundamental climatic factors, such as the effects of visible air pollution. Including these effects (as climate scientists have done for many years) would have completely changed his results. Michaels has misrepresented mainstream climate science for decades, as has been noted here, here, and elsewhere, yet he remains a darling of the skeptics in Congress who like his message.
A newer darling of Congressional climate change deniers is Christopher Monckton, who claims to be a member of the British House of Lords (a claim rejected by the House of Lords). Monckton testified before a Senate committee in May and presented such outlandish B.S. about climate that experts (such as John Mashey, Tim Lambert, John Abraham, and Barry Bickmore, to name a few) spent uncounted hours and pages and pages refuting just a subset of his errors.
Third Place. The false claim that a single weather event, such as a huge snowstorm in Washington, D.C., proves there is no global warming.
In February 2010 a big winter storm dumped record piles of snow on the mid-Atlantic U.S., including Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, prompting climate change deniers to use bad weather to try to discredit the reality of global warming. Limbaugh said, “It’s one more nail in the coffin for the global warming thing.” Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe got attention with an igloo on the national mall and labeled it “Al Gore’s new home” (combining bad science with a personal attack). Senator Jim DeMint said, “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”
Record snowfall is not an indicator of a lack of global warming, as has been pointed out in the scientific literature and many, many rounds of Congressional testimony. It merely means that there was a storm and temperatures were close to or below freezing. Indeed global warming can contribute to greater snowfalls by providing extra moisture. Many scientists testifying before the Senate and House of Representatives have explained the difference between a steadily warming planet and occasional extreme cold events in particular spots. But we can expect to see more examples of this kind of B.S. when it gets cold and snowy somewhere, sometime, this winter.
Second Place. The claim that the “Climategate” emails meant that global warming was a hoax, or was criminal, as Senator Inhofe tried to argue. In fact, it was none of these things (though the British police are still investigating the illegal hacking of a British university’s computer system and the theft of the emails).
Global warming deniers used out-of-context texts from the stolen emails to claim that global warming was a hoax or that scientists had manipulated data or were hiding evidence that climate change wasn’t happening. These claims are all B.S. A series of independent scientific and academic investigations in the U.S. and the U.K. unanimously concluded that nothing in the stolen emails made any difference to the remarkable strength of climate science (see, for example, the Penn State vindication, the Independent Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh reviews, a British Parliamentary Panel review, and other assessments). Unfortunately, the media gave far more attention to the accusations than to the resounding vindications, and climate deniers continue to spread B.S. about this case.
The bottom line of “Climategate?” As a letter in Science magazine signed by 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences said in May 2010: “there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change.”
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2010 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARD
First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or…], “the earth is cooling,” “global warming is natural,” and “humans are too insignificant to affect the climate.” Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.
The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors. The reality of climatic change can no longer be disputed on scientific grounds – the U.S. National Academy of Sciences calls the human-induced warming of the Earth a “settled fact.” The evidence for a “warming” planet includes not just rising temperatures, but also rising sea levels, melting Arctic sea ice, disappearing glaciers, increasing intense rainfalls, and many other changes that matter to society and the environment. The recent and ongoing warming of the Earth is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause.
This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers, and far too often in real media outlets. Actual science and observations from around globe have long shown the opposite (for example, here and here are nice rebuttals with real science). The planet continues to warm rapidly largely due to human activities, and average global temperatures continue to rise. The most recent decade has been the warmest decade on record and 2010 will likely go down as either the warmest or second warmest year in recorded history.
Associated B.S. argues that the famous “hockey stick” graph has been disproved. This graph shows the extraordinarily rapid warming of the twentieth century compared to the previous 1000 years. The graph and analysis have been upheld by subsequent researchers and numerous scientific assessments, including one from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
To the winners: Congratulations, it is long past time your B.S. is recognized for what it is – bad science.
And to the public and the media: Be forewarned — all of these and similar bad arguments will certainly be repeated in 2011. It is long past time that this bad science is identified, challenged, and shown to be the B.S. that it is.
The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team
Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.
[* “B.S.” means “Bad Science” doesn’t it?]
For more information, contact Dr. Peter H. Gleick or Nancy Ross, Pacific Institute, 510 725-2385. nross@pacinst.org.
Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)
via Skeptic.com by webmaster on 12/30/10
This concise pamphlet provides answers to common objections to evolution, such as: If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans?; Only an intelligent designer could have made something as complex as an eye; The second law of thermo-dynamics proves that evolution is impossible; Evolution can’t account for morality; and more…
99er, Kerry Tierney, shares a story of disappointment, frustration, fear… an...
via The Layoff List by layofflist on 12/30/10
The story that follows is the partial story of 99er and registered nurse, Kerry Tierney. The first part of this story can be seen at Unemployment Examiner: 99er Kerry Tierney shares a story of disappointment, frustration, fear and hope
In a follow-up letter Kerry expanded on her situation regarding job leads and how a registered nurse may not be in demand.
Times are most very difficult right now, my 14 year old daughter keeps bringing up the homeless shelter, and I believe deep down inside she is terrified of us ending up there. To be honest, so am I. I don’t have any other options up my sleeve, and have written the government until my fingertips hurt. Sometimes for up to 14 hours a day I have sent emails to Congress, the Ways and Means Committee, and so forth. They keep telling me it will take “time.” Time is the one thing that is not currently on our side, especially with the landlord breathing down our necks. I saw a news blurb today about the government potentially helping Americans out with their mortgages, but nothing in that piece about persons who rent apartments. There used to be a thing known as Section 8 in Illinois, but that has been closed, with no word of it ever opening up again. Section 8 might have been an option for us. I have also looked into federal grants – nothing available there either for rentals.
As far as me being a registered nurse and out of work, I believe part of the mystery lies in my age. I am almost 50, have been out of work for over 2 years, and potential employers are hesitant to hire me. I have NOT gotten one phone call or email from a potential employer for an RN position since I began my search almost 2 1/2 years ago! Not one! How odd? I do not understand it either. My educated guess would be that the employers are hiring new graduates, so they can pay them less and have to earn their benefits (health insurance, etc.) after 90 days employment. Just a guess. I have heard the same thing from other nurses as well. In Illinois, it seems we are at a total stand still with jobs. My only other guess would be that people are working 2 and 3 jobs, leaving none for the others that are still searching?
I did get a nibble of an invitation, on Dec 23, 2010 for a possible medical transcription position opening up recruiting in Jan of 2011. I sent my resume and am waiting to hear back from them. I just finished my MT (medical transcription) course in Oct of 2010. No experience equals no job. Oh, do you wanna hear another kicker? My MT instructor, upon completion of my course, wrote me an email saying that and I quote, “most employers will not hire retired or disabled nurses as medical transcriptionists” because “they are notoriously bad spellers.” She went on to say that one employer posted on her site, “if you are a nurse do not even bother to apply!” Can you imagine my shock upon reading this? Why did she not bother to tell me this PRIOR to my taking the MT course? I think I know the answer to this, for the money, of course! I have not given up hope however, I just keep on looking – in spite of what she had to say.
I am stumped however, with 2 degrees from college, I should be able to find ONE job!? In October of 2011, I will be able to drive a school bus again, like I did back in college. I have to wait because the State has to pass you – some kind of driving release. I am ineligible for this job because I had some financial problems 2 1/2 years ago, could not afford my car insurance for 2 months, so I had to apply for SR 22 because I was driving on a suspended license and had no idea! Anyway, I will be able to drive the bus again in approximately 10 months. I have never had any tickets, accidents, DUI’s, nothing on my driver’s license – except for that one instance. I have applied for some local driving jobs…but nothing yet.
These are basically the three things I know how to do for work. I have experience with nursing and driving, but no MT experience (outside of college). I will work hard, and try to give any potential employer my best effort. The ideal job would be to work in the transcription field, either from an office or from home. I am still looking Mike, every day. I know something will turn up. It has to! I want to work so much! I want to earn a paycheck again. I want to be able to provide for my daughter and myself. I always thought that by becoming a nurse, I would be set for life, but I am finding that this is not the case.
I asked Kerry to send me her resume to post here. If you are aware of anyone who may be interested in hiring Kerry or helping out her family during this difficult period, please send her a note.
Kerry Tierney
• Naperville, IL • Email Address: Tierneykkt@att.net
ͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼ
Objective: To continue in the practice of my profession where I can be of constructive help in
accordance with my background, training, and experience.
Work History:
2008 to Present Attended school for Medical Transcription Certificate Program.
2006-2008 Nightingale Home Healthcare, Burr Ridge, IL
Home Health RN – RN case manager performed home visits throughout Chicago and
suburbs; admissions, labs, record keeping, and patient care.
2005-2006 Maxim for Healthcare Services, Naperville, IL
Agency RN – Performed patient care at various hospitals, LTC’s, MD offices,
etc.; also cared for 11-year-old child with trach and G-tube.
2002-2004 Health Systems of Illinois, Lombard, IL
Utilization Review Case Manager – Performed telephonic chart review for Illinois
Department of Public Aid, utilized ICD-9 codes.
1999-2000 Central DuPage Hospital, Winfield, IL
Pre-Admission RN – Interviewed patients prior to procedure for Anesthesiology
Department; worked directly with Anesthesiologists.
1996-1999 Delnor Community Hospital, Geneva, IL
Same-Day Surgery RN – Post Surgical Unit RN – Patient care for pre and post
surgery, and med/surg patient care; also charge nurse duties.
1990-1995 Mercy Center for Healthcare Services, Aurora, IL
Hematology/Oncology– Infectious Disease – Post Surgical Unit RN
Administered Chemotherapy, med/surg patient care: also charge
nurse duties; served 2 years on Unit Advisory Committee focused
on QA; became certified in Oncology; assisted unit manager
with candidate interviews.
Education: 2009-2010 Waubonsee Community College, Aurora, IL
Medical Transcription Certificate Program
1987-1990 College of DuPage, Glen Ellyn, IL
Associate Degree in Nursing, Dean’s list, Honor Student 4.0 GPA
References: Available upon request.
Educated, talented, dedicated professionals of all types are having a difficult time finding work. This is not for a lack of effort. The employment situation in the US is not designed to help the millions of long-term unemployed reenter the workforce. Limited retraining opportunities, as in Kelly’s case, poor credit scores, length of time unemployed and age all factor into a deteriorating jobs picture for the long-term unemployed.
Now that the president and Congress have addressed the needs of the wealthy and the connected, it’s time to address the needs of the long-term unemployed. American cannot get back on track unless Americans are able to get back to work.
Wishing you all a prosperous 2011.
Do you have a story you’d like to tell? were you rejected during the hiring process for being unemployed. Have you been the victim of a temp agency that won’t give you an interview because you are unemployed? Have you seen jobs ads for “employed only” or “unemployed need not apply”? Have you lost a chance at a job due to a poor credit score? Send your job rejection experiences and unemployment stories to mike@layofflist.org.
You can also view my updates and new posts at Twitter: http://twitter.com/layofflist
Huffington Post
Huffington Post is kind enough to give me a chance to post my work at their site. I hope to be able to spread the 99er word using their larger audience. You can see my efforts at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-thornton.
Vision: How We Can Mobilize the Unemployed for a Massive Economic Movement
via AlterNet by The Nation on 12/30/10
The recession has created the perfect environment for a new social movement, but the unemployed have to combine a proud and angry identity with concrete targets.
So where are the jobs? (And are they ever coming back?)
via DownWithTyranny! by KenInNY on 12/30/10
We've already thanked Mike Keefe and R. J. Matson and of course Tom Tomorrow for another year's worth of inspiring cartooning. Here's the appropriate hat tip to the great Pat Bagley.by KenI've been futzing around with a post about the sleight-of-hand the entrenched opponents of Social Security as we know it pulled with the innocent-seeming "payroll-tax holiday" built into the "compromise" tax package. Earlier in the week I got waylaid by by a column by Michael Gerson, "Face Social Security," which packs in more lies and obfuscations per column inch than even the docile corporatist whore Mr. Gerson customarily manages. The obvious thought was that the Gerson column needed to be raised in connection with the Social Security heist Mr. G's owners are closing in on, and obviously it does. Then it occurred to me, perhaps prodded by an assist from this week's "Financial Page" by The New Yorker's financial columnist, James Surowiecki, that the Gerson column has a more immediate importance, for an accidental bit of truth that slipped in.As I read the Surowiecki piece, "The Jobs Crisis," playing in the back of my head was this eye-popping paragraph from our Mikey G:The main achievements of the lame-duck session of Congress were reminders of what might have been. President Obama gave something to get something. To secure a second stimulus, he accepted Republican economic methods. To pass the New START treaty, Obama offered assurances to Republican senators on nuclear modernization and missile defense. Contrast this with health-care reform, imposed in party-line maneuvers that left an aftertaste of ideological radicalism.
Considering how hard our Mikey has worked to ensure that every single word is a lie, I feel bad having to point out the clearly inadvertent truth that slipped in. As anyone knows who isn't (a) an absolute moron or (b) a paid-up whore of the economic elite, describing the "compromise package" as including "a second stimulus" is a mischaracterization so complete as to constitute an out-and-out, knowing falsehood. And the president didn't provide "assurances" to the sociopathic senators fighting New START; what he did was a clumsy two-step of humoring their mental illnesses and buying them off.
And you'd think that not even as blithely shameless a liar as Mikey G was capable of maintaining Obama health care package contains even a micrograin of "ideological radicalism." Before Republicans decided to embrace the imbecility and insanity so prized by their financial masters, the "ideology" of the health care package essentially written by the insurance industry (with the drug industry already having been bought off, leaving effectively nothing left to fight for) is old-style moderately conserative Republicanism. You'd think that after spewing so much ignorance and dishonesty in such a tiny paragraph, our Mikey would be too ashamed to show his corrupt caracass in public. But the corker is that morsel of truth:"he accepted Republican economic methods."And this, alas, is the God's honest truth. But again, you'd think that hired whores like Mikey G would have the discretion to keep their trap shut about "Republican economic methods," now that the wholly bought-off Republican Party has made clear what those principles are: that the U.S. economy exists only for the well-being of its masters, with everyone else -- apart from the government and media whores paid to do their dirty work -- being relegated to the status of slaves, except without even the degree of responsibility once accepted by the slave-holding class for maintaining the physical survival of its property.And it turns out that the Obama administration is cool with it.Republican economic methods are tried-and-true winners at causing recessions and depressions, which really doesn't worry them because they understand that only the nonprivileged classes consider recessions and depressions. For the people who matter, which is to say the people for whose exclusive benefit the American economy is now structured, recessions and depressions, like disasters generally, are a bonanza, as long as you know how to play them right. As witness the current boom times the financial-services-industry types who produce nothing more substantial, even at their most productive, than "deals."So they've been made whole -- by taxpayers -- and at this very moment are gorging themselves on their year's unearned, stolen "bonuses" while the rest of the country either ekes out a survival existence or doesn't. The official philosophy of the Republicans' (and of course most of Democratic officialdom's) masters toward the rest of the country is: Go perform an unnatural act on yourself. A certain percentage of the rest of us lucky duckies will be allowed to slave away for whatever pocket change our masters consider fair, and if we don't like it, well, what's massive unemployment for if not to make us all feel eminently replaceable?The question The New Yorker's James Surowiecki is pursuing in his piece this week is: Given that "the recession has been over for more than a year now,""Why have new jobs been so hard to come by?"There are, broadly, two markedly contrasting views:
And it matters, urgently.
Now I don't know about you, but the "structural" argument prompts an immediate visceral response from me:(1) What are all these jobs "in other fields" that no one knows about?(2) Where are all these jobs "in other fields" that no one knows about?(3) How is it that no one knows about all these imaginary jobs?And sure enough, Surowiecki argues that, plausbile though the structural argument may sound,
Professional liars like "Sunny John" Boehner and Dicky "The Sheik of Alabama" Shelby and their party of economic ignoramuses and thugs blither that all we need to do is get government out of the way and let "small business" do its thing. Of course the ignoramuses don't know what they're talking about, and the thugs unfortunately do -- they're just slinging the lingo to hornswoggle the economically shut-out masses, now for the first time reaching way up into the middle class. Probably the fantasy of the ignoramuses and thugs alike is the "miracle" of the "Celtic Tiger," the orgy of unabashed criminal collusion between government and the private sector to squeeze every squeezable euro out of the economy and into their pockets. We mustn't forget what slavering admirers of the Irish miracle the American right-wingers were, up to the time it all unraveled and the whole house of cards collapsed.As it happens, Surowiecki deals with the myth of salvation via small business. Economists at the Cleveland Federal Reserve, he notes, have found that, as in previous recessions,
What's more, the argument that massive unemployment is the result of structural rather than cyclical factors isn't new. "It’s a perennial: nearly every recession leads pundits to proclaim that the job market is facing structural challenges, and that higher unemployment is here to stay." It was trotted out in the 1981-82 recession.
Surowiecki doesn't discount the reality of structural change in the economy. ("[T]here are certainly plenty of construction workers who are going to have start plying a new trade.")
It's important to stress that Surowiecki isn't any sort of wild-eyed liberal. In fact, I've never heard anyone of a progressive persuasion say a kind word about his writing. I like it because it usually makes economic (and real-world) sense to me, and though he doesn't exactly come out and say so, the impulse behind those advancing the "structural" argument isn't economic -- because from an economic standpoint the argument is indefensible -- but political. Sunny John Boehner and Sheik Dick Shelby don't give a damn about the American people, or even the portion of the American people they represent. Their allegiance is to the moneyed classes whose payrolls they're on. And this is what we have to understand by Mikey G's truly explosive phrase "Republican economic methods." Pillage and plunder would be another way of describing those methods.Here's how Surowiecki concludes his consideration of where the jobs have gone:
POSTSCRIPT: AN EXCELLENT READING RESOURCE --
One view blames cyclical economic factors: at times when everyone is cautious about spending, companies are slow to expand capacity and take on more workers. But another, more skeptical account has emerged, which argues that a big part of the problem is a mismatch between the jobs that are available and the skills that people have. According to this view, many of the jobs that existed before the recession (in home building, for example) are gone for good, and the people who held those jobs don’t have the skills needed to work in other fields. A big chunk of current unemployment, the argument goes, is therefore structural, not cyclical: resurgent demand won’t make it go away.
And it matters, urgently.
If the problem is a lack of demand, policies that boost demand—fiscal stimulus, aggressive monetary policy—will help. But if unemployment is mainly structural there’s little we can do about it: we just need to wait for the market to sort things out, which is going to take a while.
Now I don't know about you, but the "structural" argument prompts an immediate visceral response from me:(1) What are all these jobs "in other fields" that no one knows about?(2) Where are all these jobs "in other fields" that no one knows about?(3) How is it that no one knows about all these imaginary jobs?And sure enough, Surowiecki argues that, plausbile though the structural argument may sound,
[T]here’s surprisingly little evidence for it. If the problems with the job market really were structural, you’d expect job losses to be heavily concentrated in a few industries, the ones that are disappearing as a result of the bursting of the bubble. And if there were industries that were having trouble finding enough qualified workers, you’d expect them to have lots of job vacancies, and to be paying their existing workers more and working them longer hours.As it happens, you don’t see any of those things. Instead, jobs have been lost and hiring is slow almost across the board. Payrolls were slashed by five per cent or more not just in the bubble categories of construction and finance but also in manufacturing, retail, wholesale, transportation, and information technology. And take hiring: one of the industries that have been most cautious is the hotel and leisure business. Needless to say, there’s no shortage of people with the skills to be maids or waiters; there just isn’t enough work. Another sure sign of weak demand is that people with jobs aren’t deluged with overtime; hours worked have barely budged in the past year.
Professional liars like "Sunny John" Boehner and Dicky "The Sheik of Alabama" Shelby and their party of economic ignoramuses and thugs blither that all we need to do is get government out of the way and let "small business" do its thing. Of course the ignoramuses don't know what they're talking about, and the thugs unfortunately do -- they're just slinging the lingo to hornswoggle the economically shut-out masses, now for the first time reaching way up into the middle class. Probably the fantasy of the ignoramuses and thugs alike is the "miracle" of the "Celtic Tiger," the orgy of unabashed criminal collusion between government and the private sector to squeeze every squeezable euro out of the economy and into their pockets. We mustn't forget what slavering admirers of the Irish miracle the American right-wingers were, up to the time it all unraveled and the whole house of cards collapsed.As it happens, Surowiecki deals with the myth of salvation via small business. Economists at the Cleveland Federal Reserve, he notes, have found that, as in previous recessions,
there are as few job vacancies as you’d expect, given how desperate people are for work. The percentage of small businesses with so-called “hard-to-fill” job vacancies is near a twenty-five-year low, and open jobs are being filled quickly. And one recent study showed that companies’ “recruiting intensity” has dropped sharply, probably because the fall-off in demand means that they don’t have a pressing need for new workers.
What's more, the argument that massive unemployment is the result of structural rather than cyclical factors isn't new. "It’s a perennial: nearly every recession leads pundits to proclaim that the job market is facing structural challenges, and that higher unemployment is here to stay." It was trotted out in the 1981-82 recession.
Yet, by 1984, unemployment was back to where it had been before recession hit. A 1964 survey of economists found that more than half believed structural issues were playing a significant role in limiting the number of jobs; three years later, unemployment was below four per cent.
Surowiecki doesn't discount the reality of structural change in the economy. ("[T]here are certainly plenty of construction workers who are going to have start plying a new trade.")
But what defined the recent recession was the biggest decline in consumption and investment since the Depression. Dealing with that is the place to start if we want to do something about unemployment.
It's important to stress that Surowiecki isn't any sort of wild-eyed liberal. In fact, I've never heard anyone of a progressive persuasion say a kind word about his writing. I like it because it usually makes economic (and real-world) sense to me, and though he doesn't exactly come out and say so, the impulse behind those advancing the "structural" argument isn't economic -- because from an economic standpoint the argument is indefensible -- but political. Sunny John Boehner and Sheik Dick Shelby don't give a damn about the American people, or even the portion of the American people they represent. Their allegiance is to the moneyed classes whose payrolls they're on. And this is what we have to understand by Mikey G's truly explosive phrase "Republican economic methods." Pillage and plunder would be another way of describing those methods.Here's how Surowiecki concludes his consideration of where the jobs have gone:
The structural argument makes government action seem irrelevant. But if we don’t do more to get the economy back up to speed, it won’t be because stimulating demand won’t work. It will be because we’ve chosen not to do it. If we can’t find the way, it’s because we don’t have the will.
POSTSCRIPT: AN EXCELLENT READING RESOURCE --
THE CORPORATISTS' BIGGEST LIES OF 2010
Excellent piece by Les Leopold on AlterNet: "Wall St's 10 Biggest LIes of 2010."
Leopold starts with the obvious No. 1 lie, "Honest, we didn't do it!" And while denying "all culpability," they "pointed the finger everywhere else."
He proceeds to some of the more familiar lies, and some of the more eccentric ones, and of course the shiftier ones that may be true but not in the way the elites mean. There is, for example, the president's "hard truth": "that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by employees of the federal government." "But not by Wall Street," Leopold adds.
There's a lot more, targeting not just "Tiny Tim" Geithner but the latest stud in the corporatist-whore stable Peter Orszag, and the popular right-wing canard that the unemployed choose to be jobless. Yeah, right. This way they can live the high life off of unemployment benefits, while moving their families into tents after losing their homes.
Excellent piece by Les Leopold on AlterNet: "Wall St's 10 Biggest LIes of 2010."
What a great year for Wall Street: profits up, bonuses up and, best of all, criticism down, especially from Washington. Somehow Wall Street has much of America believing its lies and rationalizations. We're even beginning to forget that Wall Street is largely responsible for the economic mess we're in.So before we're completely overtaken by financial Alzheimer's, let's revisit Wall Street's greatest fabrications for 2010.
Leopold starts with the obvious No. 1 lie, "Honest, we didn't do it!" And while denying "all culpability," they "pointed the finger everywhere else."
Sadly, their blame-shifting strategy worked, bamboozling the media and people across the political spectrum. The GOP members of the Financial Crisis Commission are so drunk with this Kool-Aid that in their minority report, they refuse even to use the words "Wall Street" or "speculation" in assessing the causes of the crash. Hypocrites? Crooks? Morons? Take your pick.
He proceeds to some of the more familiar lies, and some of the more eccentric ones, and of course the shiftier ones that may be true but not in the way the elites mean. There is, for example, the president's "hard truth": "that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by employees of the federal government." "But not by Wall Street," Leopold adds.
Mr. President, the "hard truth" is that you're slapping around public sector workers because you don't have the nerve to take on Wall Street. If you had the guts, you could raise real money by going to war with Steven Schwartzman and eliminating the hedge fund tax loophole. By the way, closing that loophole for just the top 25 hedge fund managers would raise twice the revenue than you'll get by freezing the wages of all two million federal workers!
There's a lot more, targeting not just "Tiny Tim" Geithner but the latest stud in the corporatist-whore stable Peter Orszag, and the popular right-wing canard that the unemployed choose to be jobless. Yeah, right. This way they can live the high life off of unemployment benefits, while moving their families into tents after losing their homes.
#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)