dagblog - Comments for "Stop the Presses: Feminists to Blame for the Economic Crisis!"

With all the crisis in the

Journey_A — Tue, 19 May 2009 06:03:48 +0000

In reply to Stop the Presses: Feminists to Blame for the Economic Crisis!

With all the crisis in the economy it is indeed true that the recession has hit everyone hard, even the places you would think to be recession proof, like Amish communities. Amish communities interact with the outside world out of necessity, and a lot of Amish fathers look for work in cities to make ends meet. Elkhart Goshen, Indiana, is one such place, and a lot of Amish workers were laid off when RV plants laid off workers or closed. Short term loans aren't exactly going to be what they look to, although some have filed for unemployment benefits, which goes against the grain of not accepting aid. The unemployment rate hits anywhere and everywhere, as there is a need for debt relief even in the Amish communitie s.

Yo, G, did I spell meshugeneh

LisB — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:38:12 +0000

In reply to Okay, here's the rundown:

Yo, G, did I spell meshugeneh right? It looks kinda funny....

Okay, here's the rundown:

LisB — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:59:53 +0000

In reply to Can we get back to Genghis'

Okay, here's the rundown: Learn to say Oy and mean it. Every time you hear a weasel start talking to you, tell yourself you're meshegunuh.

Go shopping at the mall to schlep for something, and then tell yourself you're a mensch for going there.

Once you've beaten yourself up over it, and gotten all teary, berate yourself for being so verklempt.

Then, go home and eat lotsa matza ball soup. And koogle for dessert.

I believe you meant

quinn esq — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:37:12 +0000

In reply to Sorry, I didn't mean that I

I believe you meant "flustercluck."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

LisB — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:36:59 +0000

In reply to Stop the Presses: Feminists to Blame for the Economic Crisis!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS_P2YKZVwc

Ladies first! Ladies first!

Can we get back to Genghis'

quinn esq — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:36:15 +0000

In reply to Stop the Presses: Feminists to Blame for the Economic Crisis!

Can we get back to Genghis' excellent point about blaming the Jews?

I'm all for it, but I'd like to see some names first, as I'm new to this "How To Be A Jew" business, and just want to be a bit careful at this point.

Thanking you in advance.

Orlando, when I first read

Bluesplashy — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:37:23 +0000

In reply to Stop the Presses: Feminists to Blame for the Economic Crisis!

Orlando, when I first read your blog I hopped up on my fem box but then I hopped off and stood there rather stupified when I realized people have already forgotten the cause of this crap we are sliding into. The slice dicing and passing around of the mystry derivatives, leaveraging beyond all reason - worth repeating ALL REASON, and continued lying and hiding by the money people is what pushed the first domino over. Now, I am not saying that people using thier houses as ATMs, using credit to keep up appearences, and even people signing on the dotted line for a house they knew damn well they could never afford to make 6 payments in a row on helped stop the mudslid but make sure we know how this started. And let it be known that it started the same way the last depression started that ended when the government spent it's way out and then passed laws to prevent another depression from happening that got repealed so it could happen again and it did.

I'm going have to find another outlet for my anger about this situation. First I am angry about the greed thing that created and fed this insanity but that is justified anger and that I can handle. What sends me into the ozone is the fact there will be no punishment for the money jackasses that started this. And when the Queen of the Universe cannot punish those she deems in need of an major asswhupping she gets really pissed for a loonnngg time.

Sorry, I didn't mean that I

Orlando — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:28:00 +0000

In reply to gotta disagree on this

Sorry, I didn't mean that I think we need to completely reinvigorate American manufacturing. I wasn't explicit about that, so I can get where you'd think I was advocating for that position. And I don't think I'm romanticizing a bygone era--just remarking that I do think it's sad that we don't make things any more. But please understand that I see the value in globalization, and anyway, even if I didn't, that ship has sailed.

That said, I absolutely think the auto bailout is the right thing to do. First and foremost, although there will be losers in globalization, as you say, losing that many jobs that quickly would be catostrophic. Second, we have a great opportunity right now to force the big three to get serious about making cars that don't wreck the planet. I haven't heard anyone except for Hal argue that we don't need cars and there is no reason that we can't keep making them in Detroit. Those companies just need to get with the program and right now the government has a unique opportunity to make them understand that in no uncertain terms. Will they do it? I don't know. But in the short term, stemming the loss of that many jobs is no less important than keeping the banks open.

Aside from their tone deafness on making cars that people actually want to buy, they are saddled with these legacy costs that keep them from being competitive in the world market. Globalization is great, but when you can't be competitive in the world market because every other country pays for their citizens' health care from the community fund and you're forced to pay not just for your employees but for everybody that ever worked for you and everybody married to everybody that ever worked for you, it puts you at a teeny disadvantage. This is a problem. But it's a solvable one, and I think Obama signaled yesterday that he is going to be all over it.

I agree with you on the redistribution of wealth, through a much more progressive tax system than we currently have, and for the reasons you've stated.

Ultimately, these issues are uber-complicated and there is no single thing that contributed to the clusterfuck that we find ourselves in, just as there is no single thing that is going to get us out.

I still stand by my assessment that the decline in manufacturing jobs replaced by service industry jobs has played a role. It doesn't automatically follow that the solution is to replace service industry jobs with manufacturing jobs. It's not and I get that.

gotta disagree on this

Deadman — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:06:33 +0000

In reply to I think maybe you're right,

gotta disagree on this orlando. i've been trying to avoid bailout/economic talk because i'm frankly sick of it but so much important stuff is happening ...

you either believe that globalization confers net benefits for society (there are certainly negative and positive effects from it, but you have to eventually come down on one side of the ledger of it being in aggregate, a net positive or net negative.)

I happen to think without a doubt, the stats (when it comes to almost any recognized measure of wealth, econ. growth, standard of living, life span, and even more subjective categories like happiness, fulfillment, etc.) have shown globalization has been a net positive for the world. I think, importantly, it's also been a net positive for us (but that admittedly is a tougher argument to make, with rising income inequality and serious regional dislocations evening out the scale to a large degree).

If you believe globalization is a net positive, you have to realize that there will be new losers in that world as capital in each society gets deployed more efficiently, and be OK with that. Yes, many forms of manufacturing and blue collar labor will migrate to lower-cost areas, while rich industrialized nations such as ours will have to find new ways to add value to that labor. In other words, sure, Ipods and Iphones will be made in Taiwan but the vast majority of the benefits from Apple's design and marketing genius will confer to American workers and American cities and American citizens. And yes, service industries will become a much larger part of our GDP.

That's just the market allocating resources efficiently, not a developing house of cards. However, I DO agree that it has the potential to cause trouble if for some reason other areas of the world en masse rebel against globalization, closing off their borders. however, i think it's highly unlikely that all third world and developing countries turn their back on globalization at the same time, and there'd be nothing keeping us from reinvesting in factories and the like even if that did happen (tho there would be a cost to us as we try to scale those back up).

Instead of bitching about the changes caused by globalization and trying to save industries doomed to fail, the much better policy would be to a) try and retrain displaced workers for jobs we do need and which cannot be easily outsourced, such as technology, construction, health care, etc. b) work to make sure we are competing in fair markets and that some social goals we believe strongly in, such as environmental or labor concerns are being protected c) and most importantly, (and this is where I differ from a lot of conservative economists) reallocate wealth so that communities and workers who have lost out in the new world don't suffer unduly.

The last policy is not merely a question of being fair or doing the right thing from a moral standpoint, but is absolutely vital in my opinion to maintain a stable society. Too many libertarians disregard the potential for civil unrest from ever increasing levels of income inequality, but I look at that factory sit-in as just the beginning of the kind of thing that could happen throughout this country if we forget about the people left behind in a globalized world.

But if you give the car companies $15-$30 billion without forcing them to restructure and lower many of their costs, then you are merely pissing money away, throwing good money after bad. The companies lose thousands of dollars on every vehicle they sell, in good economies and bad ones (GM hasnt made an operating profit in almost 5 years), and a large reason for that is the increasingly uncompetitive labor costs.

btw, i find it ironic that you disparage paige for looking at the old world in a romanticized Beaver Cleaver way when it comes to something like the single-income family, and not see that in some ways the same thing is going on with the American economy and manufacturing. as you yourself argue - societies undergo 'huge sea change kinda stuff ... It's easy to look back on the past and place the blame on something that we think we've lost, but it's never that uncomplicated.'

Ok, I totally agree about the

CaliforniaPaige — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:34:24 +0000

In reply to There are two major flaws in

Ok, I totally agree about the debt crisis not being directly related to income levels. I was just trying to get at the meatier tangent.