Saturday, April 03, 2004

Posted here Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 6:37:58 PM     The wal-mart phenomena, largest employer in the US, largest foundation, main instigator of the voucher system, motivated to dpo away with any welfare, dive down wages and sell chinese made product. It is jut a large scale reational model. Be the best at paying the least for wages and product, and sell at a profit. I don't see it so much as a synister operation, but one that had to emerge, given the rules of the current economy.Someone had to play the role of cheap wages, cheap buying and cheap selling, taking advantage of the differences between the US and China. It was ripe for a monopolistic company, because someone had to do better than others, and in doing so, made the others have to fail.  http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=672_0_1_0_C ********

Posted here Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 3:19:58 PM     This is helpful in understanding these figures. http://www.drsohn.com/04pres/sohn/2004/MarEmployment.pdf Employment Report for March 2004  Sung Won Sohn Wells Fargo Bank 612 667 7498 Summary Responding to economic strength, payroll employment rose 308,000 in March. The jobless rate edged up to 5.7 percent from 5.6 percent as more people joined the labor force. The total employment for January and February was revised up as well. Analysis The final piece of economic recovery is in the process of falling in place. Finally, jobs are responding to economic expansion. Employment gains were broadly based. Manufacturing stopped shedding jobs for the first time in 44 months. The labor force participation rate has stabilized at 65.9 percent. Productivity gains are slowing, Severl things are striking. First is that beibg laid off too long leads eventually to getting a part time job. (see the New Yorker, THE CHURN Creative destruction in a border town. http://newyorker.com/nrintah1e/7fact/040329fa_fact for a vivid portrayal of how this works in specifics), and second, that when a worker starts looking, they are counted as unemployed, whereas before looking, they were not. note the very striking "labor force" participation at 65.9. The smae kind of difference as between non registered and non voting registered voters. ********

Posted here Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 12:27:06 PM     One issue not yet discussed enough is, why did the Bush admin go in directions so different from those hinted at or spoken clearly in the pre election rhetoric. "A kinder gentler nation" may be one of the major pieces of Bush appeal that did not make it past inauguration. One theory is that he needed a staff and hired what was available and not too controversial - hence the insider bureaucrats from Bush 1 or the neocons. It was not principled, just a hiring problem. Deeper is the possibility that the real plan is to scuttle the Roosevelt welfare state by taking the country into activities which represent the new legitimacy - military - and make the old - social welfare - too costly. the facts are not yet in. ********

Posted here Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 12:22:46 PM     not only was saddham without WMD, the admin implies he was on the path. But an alternative view is that he was growing wweaker by the day and meretime would have solved the problem. http://www.constellationsjournal.org/Semmler-Nell.pdf His army had been reduced to more or less half its previous size;his conventional weaponry had become out of date; his missiles had been used up and not replaced; most of whatever arsenal of mass destruction he had was destroyed. And it was clear that the regime was not popular: in the North, the Kurds were in more or less open revolt; while in the South, the Shi’ite majority had long resented its exclusion from power. In short, before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam appeared to be weaker and less dangerous than ever. ... Moreover, it emerged that Saudi money had financed both the Taliban and al Qaeda. And, of course, Bin Laden himself – and his money – came from within the Saudi establishment, close to the royal family. The world’s largest oil producer, sitting on the world’s largest and most easily tapped pool of reserves, could no longer be trusted to remain loyal and cooperative. The US depends on Saudi Arabia – and on Iraq – for imported oil. The Texas oilmen who figure so prominently in the administration are unlikely to opt for conservation and improved energy efficiency. What to do? Well, Saddam’s weakness, together with his belligerence and general unpopularity, offered an opportunity. To understand just what this opportunity meant, we need to look at the importing of oil by the industrial countries (US and OECD Europe), together with the annual production of oil, as well as the remaining oil resources by region. The picture that emerges will provide clues to the administration’s actions. .. This table (click on article to see) underlines a major geopolitical problem: on the one hand, the reserves of the advanced economies are rapidly shrinking and thus overexploited; on the other hand, those of the Middle East are both much larger and significantly underexploited. ... ... In other words, as we have argued above, if this war ‘is not’ about oil, the discussion should be about oil. Control of oil, not weapons of mass destruction, is the real long-run issue, not only for the West, but for the rest of the world as well. Basically, the world has one chance to make the transition from an industrial civilization fuelled by fossils to one based on renewable energy. ********

Posted here Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 11:55:53 AM     facts China's middle class growing fast China's middle class is growing at 1% a year China's middle class has mushroomed to nearly one fifth of the population, according to the country's leading thinktank. A Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) study found 19% of Chinese were middle class in 2003, up from 15% at the end of 1999. It includes any household with assets worth $18,000 (£10,000) to $36,000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3582015.stm add 12:10pm better souyrce http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20040330-114113-6235r  ********