seneca,
your analysis is perfectly in keeping with the Free Market ideology that people are there to serve the markets, instead of the liberal notion that markets are there to serve people…
And what is more important to our society in the long run: the prosperity and well-being of its workforce or the size of the bonuses we pay our executives?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 7 2008 16:39 utc | 3

@rapt – This looks to me like deflation, combined with a market crash.
1. There are various economic concepts of what inflation actually is.
Most people think inflation is when prices go up. Serious economists argue that’s bull, because prices go up because the money supply expands. Therefore money supply expansion is the real inflation, money supply contraction is deflation. I find the later concept much better.
But lets for a moment stick to the inflation=prices-up concept which you seem to think of.
Have you ever heard someone bother about asset-inflation? I do not remember to have heard or read “Stock prices are rising too high!” So when stock prices go down, how is that supposed to be deflation?
The U.S. inflation statistics by BEA does not count house value but owners’ equivalent rent to measure inflation. While house prices went up, official inflation rates didn’t. Now that house prices are falling while rents are stable, we are supposed to count that as deflation?
2. the inflation/deflation discussion is always getting abused for manipulation.
When in 2003 inflation was low and fine, Greenspan started a “we fear deflation” horror show while daily costs of living were still going up. It allowed him to lower interest rates to 1% and to keep them there for over a year. Result: a housing, banking and commodity bubble that later broke down under its own weight.
Bernanke expands that as he is arguing for printing more money (his “helicopter” paper: “Deflation: Making Sure “It” Doesn’t Happen Here”)
The “deflation” scare is used as an argument to increase inflation. Which is good when you have debt that gets inflated away, but bad when you have to live on fixed income or a normal job.
Guess what overleveraged banks who made big losses like better.
Real deflation happens when prices and hourly income both sink in a spiral. We ain’t there yet and as jobs are much more specialized than in earlier times, its quite possible that we will not get there.
What we currently have is asset price dis-inflation because over-leveraged financial entities are deleveraging. That is a normal process and unless it creates a downward spiral in wages it is not deflation.
In the concept of money supply=inflation, the Fed is currently expanding its balance sheet like hell. I do not see a contraction in money supply in any available statistic. M1 and M2 is still quite expansive.
Real deflation is a possibility but it is still unlikely and can be fought with fiscal measures (FDR-like).
Current talk about deflation is a scare tactic to allow an increase in inflation that will hurt many people and benefit a few.

Posted by: b | Nov 7 2008 17:57 utc | 5

what i find exceptional in this moment is how the medias – confronted with what are obviousllt elements of a class war – that is to say the bhailout are all for one class & not another – that these govts all over the world – cannot find the few million centimes to aid the people in homeless shelters &on the streets but make money dissapear for the elites. & the pêople to this point seem to buy it
i’d like to point out that what is happening in latin america did not arrive because of fancy ideas but instead – the people rising up & saying enough is enough
but in the west – every day of this crisis the middle class, the working class & the poor are being attacked directly & yet the myth that a few lads & lassies in wall street can resolve it is being streched as a kind of truth to breaking point

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 7 2008 19:48 utc | 7

me @8

Posted by: catlady | Nov 7 2008 20:03 utc | 9

Rapt,
Kunsler in the column (3ed down) “What Now” makes the case that we’ll be hit bu a double whammy, first by deflation, then later with run away inflation.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 7 2008 20:19 utc | 11

I liked this quote’s transcription.

“Some of the choices that we’re going to make are going to be difficult,” Obama said. “It is not going to be quick. It’s not going to be easy for us to dig ourselves out of the whole that we are in.”

Obama calls for swift action on economy

Posted by: plushtown | Nov 7 2008 21:22 utc | 13

Nice, plush!
W also responsible for this one (OT): Hu’s on first?

Posted by: catlady | Nov 7 2008 21:40 utc | 15

i would like to say more clearly what i posted on this thread before – that is – that the crisis of capital is irrevocable. they cannot ‘fix’ it. the concentration of wealth is benifiting & can only benifit thos who have too much already. otherwise, everything that the ‘legislators’ of capital can do – is implicity & overtly an attack on the people. in europe it is especially clear but it is underlined by what is happening in the u s & england
if the people cannot be defended in the hours of their direst need then they need to learn, & learn quickly the recent lessons of latin america
the media – always the loyal servant of capital – from the beginning of this friedmanite nightmare to its collapse that media has sold the story of success that has become more & more sordid. equality of opportunity exchanged foàr crude & lout run lottery. the role of the media in exacerbating & promoting the inequality of opportunity – is in & of itself a crime against humanity
how in any sense – this crisis is ‘our’ crisis is in & of itself a lie so libellous that it ought to brign shame & infamy for thos scribblers & commentators who speak it. it is & remains an inevitable crisis of capital. & it is irrevocable. & the beneficiaries will remain the same & the victims the sam. that can be changed if the people realise the endgame of their own fear. it is going to get worse. a lot worse.
their resistance cannot make their situation worse. on the contrary it can make their situation practically better & certainly ‘spiritually’ so
the people of venezuela constructed & forged the bolivrian revolution, so too the bolivian people – it was not the genius of the leadership (tho genius it has) but the exhaustion of the people turned on its head & transformed into political & practical resistance
i would like to believe in an obama but the reality is that it is the epeople’s moment & they must choose to make their demand met & if they are not met – to fight & to fight hard. the economic situation is already catastrophic but we have seen nothing so far – what will happen in the next year will surpass the great depression in both ampleur & depth. it will cross continents & cultures & whatever gains the masses have made the elites will try to destroy them
but it is a unique moment because the interelite rivalry is so intense – each one want to claim the spoils of this crisis & in this rupture there is a huge opening for the people to make their own history like their latin american brothers & sisters.
if they cannot meet the challenge of history they will be crushed by the carelessness of capital

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 7 2008 22:11 utc | 17

Nice catch, b! I’m convinced that it takes the b effect to spot the priceless of all the Palin effects.

Posted by: Cynthia | Nov 7 2008 23:51 utc | 19

Interesting pachinko-progression here.
First ‘seneca’, making a wholly unsupported posit, when economic data are freely available and can be parsed using fundamental statistical methods to say, perhaps, “But the truth is, capital… (presumably here ‘seneca’ means “GDP”, or maybe, “net after-tax corporate profits,” or even “overall dividend distributions”, since capitalism is not some ‘thing’ that can ‘like’ any other some ‘non-thing’)… likes high unemployment with a statistical covariance of 0.4547, except when unemployment occurs in Defense, then covariance drops to 0.1243, or when it occurs in biopharm, there ‘capital’ will intercede administratively with a probability of 0.7823.”
Then there’s always a lull on MoA, while the crowd waits, lips pursed, tense. Some nameless blogger in the crowd shouts out, “I’m sympathetic to Hussman’s argument!!”
And it begins. From ‘seneca’ solipsist baseless premise, ‘ralphiboy’ elaborates on the falsehood, with the latest Krugman meme, “your analysis is perfectly in keeping with the Free Market ideology that people are there to serve the markets!”
It snowballs downhill from there.
‘Rapt’ presumes, “This looks to me like deflation, combined with a market crash!” and within five posts, we’re right back to the Marxist dialect angels dancing on the head of a pin, squealing, “me! me! oh, pick me!”, with ‘b’ dropping little plums every other beat as your Southern Baptist call-and-response revival messiah.
Wow! WTF happened to this bar? Where are all the yay-hoo’s? Must be a slow news day.
“And don’t believe what the leftists are saying! This entire wardrobe is borrowed!! I never asked for anything more than a Diet Dr. Pepper once in a while,” Palin said.

Posted by: Benthir Dunthat | Nov 8 2008 4:52 utc | 21

Forgot to add that money can be printed with impunity during a deflationary period, because it doesn’t register as inflation. At least until the cycle reverses and there’s all that extra money chasing too few assets.
Watching various e-bay markets would confirm there is a distinct deflationary thing going on.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 8 2008 6:14 utc | 23

The FT meme here is wrong – some who killed themselves were “investors” others were small farmers drowned in debt.
Sharp rise in Indian investors’ suicides

The global financial crisis is taking its toll in India’s cities as some despairing investors and stockbrokers seek refuge from their losses and debt in suicide.
A wave of financially related deaths over the past month has sparked concerns about the vulnerability of unsophisticated investors and borrowers encouraged by rising markets and easy credit in one of the world’s fastest growing economies.
…
“People are committing suicide because of difficulties associated with globalisation and a life all about debt. Lots of people are living beyond their means.”
…
Police estimate that 118,000 people in India killed themselves in 2006, a rise of 34 per cent over a decade.
About 1,000 farmers hit by crop failure and debt kill themselves every month, often with lethal draughts of insecticide, according to official figures.

Posted by: b | Nov 8 2008 10:44 utc | 25

minimum wage anyone?

Posted by: CP | Nov 8 2008 14:12 utc | 27

By the way, its called Import Substitution Industrialization. Its success triggered the US’s War on Latin America, and its evil stepson, the War with on Drugs.
The US is now going through a sort of post-modern Dependency Theory blowback.
Its complicated. One has to read and study the texts if one wants to outsmart the professional planners.

Posted by: Malooga | Nov 8 2008 14:36 utc | 29

I will say this, why in the hell is Palin’s Wardrobe an issue for discussion at this point? It’s over. Obama won. Palin’s history, for now, and probably forever, in regards to National Politics, so the MSM’s continuation of this ridiculous story is deplorable when you consider the challenges with which we are confronted in this Nation, and the World.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 8 2008 15:10 utc | 31

the USA is going to evolve a new industrial policy whether it likes it or not. The trend towards a “service-based” economy is unsustainable and already a disaster.
question is whether there are sensible smart options for a new industrial policy that effectively also addresses broader goals : jobs, wages, environment, infrastructure, sustainable energy/resources, health-care, housing … ? And I believe there are.
one big edge that China has is the manner in which its government plays a substantial role in assisting & coordinating its manufacturing base. The USA govt occasionally plays a huge role but mostly after problems emerge. Hence the current massive bailouts & give-aways to huge corporations. Seems rather stupid when these problems were predicted years ago & could have been averted with far less pain via effective govt intervention.
The Germans, Swedes, Finns & Norwegians do a pretty decent of coordinating their industrial bases too. A good example is Norway which has gradually built & leveraged its home-grown expertise in oil & gas into a significant export products/services industry.
The global market has changed & its become too competitive for any single economy to thrive without well targeted & effective government assistance & coordination.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 8 2008 15:43 utc | 33

why in the hell is Palin’s Wardrobe an issue for discussion at this point?
because the gop is imploding. they are having an internal struggle to determine who will be leading the party. these ‘leaks’ are hammered home on fox news and initiated w/the mcCain campaign. some goppers want to bury her here and now. too many rumors she’s angling for a run in ’12. newsweek
they were furious when they heard rumors that Todd Palin was calling around to Alaska bigwigs telling them to hold their powder until 2012.

Posted by: annie | Nov 8 2008 16:07 utc | 35

“they were furious when they heard rumors that Todd Palin was calling around to Alaska bigwigs telling them to hold their powder until 2012. Palin’s chance in 2012 are just about zilch. Firstly because she has no major state supporting her. Alaska doesn’t have enough numerical clout to seriously pressure the national party structure, the big states have plenty of capable pols who held off this cycle because the shrub factor was too large, just itching to have a go in 2012.
Secondly the rethugs are going to recognise that they can no longer win refighting the culture wars. That shit doesn’t work when times get serious most peeps aren’t interested in what their next door neighbours kids are up to when they need to put food on their own table.
Anyone who thinks the problems will be over in four years is dreaming.
The number one problem is that there will be incredible impetus, from the sort of argument in this thread for amerika to turn the clock back and recreate it’s industrial base.
I hate to be the one to tell ya but the chances of that working are slim to none. If amerika tried that it’s people really would be competing head to head with the semi-slave piece workers in Latin America and Asia.
Sure they could put up protectionist barriers and manufacture for the domestic market, but that is all it would be, cause as soon as amerika put up the barriers so would everyone else, which would put the amerikan economy righ up shit creek. amerika is too heavily indebted and so dependent on imported goods, not just energy, everyone forgets that oil’s major utility is as a standard mix of stable complex organic molecules. These are used to manufacture everything we use and take for medication, even some of the things we eat especially the chemicals that allow intensive agriculture.
So if amerika disengaged from world trade how would it get the materials to manufacture with?
Now I know the idea of complete self sufficient organic lifestyle prolly sounds good to many here, but do you really think you can sell that to your fellow citizens overnight?
The result would be something like the economy I grew up in, capitalist, but heavily protected capitalist where the state had to manage the types of goods being manufactured to ensure sufficient goods saleable overseas were made to enable us to buy the necessities. Those goods sold overseas were heavily subsidised by domestic consumers who paid more for theirs than the foreigners did, so as to ensure international competitiveness.
Many on the left in amerika seem to have never bothered to analyse why it was that the amerikan capitalists moved their operations offshore. Why did domestic labour become untenable, and no I’m not arguing about wages or health benefits here, the reasons why the capitalists moved were more fundamental than that.
As far as I can see the major problem confronting amerika is that the resources that built the empire are close to exhausted. The mines, forests and oil wells have had all the easy ‘earns’ taken out of them which makes any manufacturing based on those resources unable to compete on price.
That makes the alternatives either continuing imperialism where the resources are stolen from other ‘weaker’ nations. That requires full economic engagement with the rest of the world, meaning no protectionism and lots of wars – kinda what has been going on lately, or a decision not to compete on price with high volume crappy goods, where people think smart about the best way to add value to what resources are left that can be sustainably exploited.
The second option is obviously preferable to most here but that isn’t an overnight move. To achieve that amerika would have to recognise that it’s most useful resource is it’s humans and invest heavily in their education health and general well being especially children’s well being.
That’s quite an about face in a society trained to treat the masses as the enemy, even in the ‘lefty’ circles, but it could be done, over a couple of generations. How long do you reckon that it will take before amerikans get tired of working for the future and go back to electing someone who offers instant gratification?
Anyway I gotta go back to thinking about my society where the peeps got tired of waiting even though unemployment was at record lows and voted for immediate tax cuts which they will never see as the greedheads are once again allowed to grab the dough before it gets out to the deluded chunk (40%) who voted for tax cuts with a worldwide economic meltdown on the horizon.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 8 2008 17:09 utc | 37

Thanks DID@37
To add, I believe most if not every nation that has successfully developed a capability in a particular manufacturing sector, in the face of foreign competition, has had to put up some protectionist barriers. In the case of China, keeping its currency weak provides the same protectionist effect as applying tariffs. Eventually, the USA is going to have to follow suit in some fashion.
Al@36,
Thanks, I will check them out

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 8 2008 17:34 utc | 39

Let’s see, how does Rahm stand on economic matters.
Democrats Kiss Up to K Street

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) provides a good example of dishonest graft. In 1993, Emanuel was the Clinton administration aide charged with ramming NAFTA through Congress “over the dead bodies” of labor and environmental groups, as American Express’s CEO cheered at the time. Emanuel orchestrated weekly meetings with K Street lobbyists to strategize about how to pressure Democratic lawmakers. Emanuel went on to cash in as an investment banker, raking in roughly $16 million over a two-year period. From his Wall Street perch in 2000, he published a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed demanding Congress pass the China free trade deal –another K Street-backed goodie that has helped keep American wages stagnating in the face of skyrocketing corporate profits, and is now projected to destroy at least 1 million American jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Just two years after grossly outspending an opponent to buy an Illinois congressional seat, Emanuel was appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee, the panel that oversees trade policy and that helped corporate lobbyists ram NAFTA through back in 1993. Emanuel also was appointed head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which ran millions of dollars worth of ads trumpeting Democrats anti-corruption platform, and which supported the scores of Democrats running against the very lobbyist-written trade policies Emanuel has based his political career on.
Now, with Emanuel as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, we see dishonest graft kick into high gear. The same day as the press conference, a group of House Democrats wrote a formal letter to Emanuel demanding he hold a Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss the secret trade negotiations going on between a handful of Democrats and the White House. That letter, according to The Hill, was “rebuffed” even though, again, it was Emanuel’s DCCC that aggressively supported Democrats 2006 fair trade candidates. No meeting occurred, and instead Democratic leaders held their press conference, announcing a secret trade deal that, like NAFTA, is strongly backed by K Street lobbyists, but opposed by organized labor, environmental groups, health care groups and grassroots Democrats. Meanwhile, when Emanuel was asked by the Politico’s Jeff Patch for details about why Democrats were now backing off their promises to reform lobbying laws so as to prevent Abramoff-style abuse, he did his best Dick Cheney impression, telling the reporter, “Why don’t you go fuck yourself.”

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 8 2008 18:50 utc | 41

@41,
its politically smart for a prez to have a couple of highly partisan “street-fighter” “bad-guy” types on his team. The Dems have been too soft for too long & to the extent that the Repubs fear Rahm Emanuel, he looks like a good choice for the job.
not to condone or endorse Rahms record and Obama must know he needs to keep Rahm on a short leash. Otherwise, it comes back on Obama. Simple.
also WH-COS is not by job-description a major policy-making role though we would be fooled not to expect Rahm to contribute significantly. But even if Obama was the type of prez who’s not tuned-in or paying attention, the WH-COS is not going to dominate policy.
like any Dem prez confronted with the Republican mode of operation, Obama needs a couple of people who are’nt shy about getting nasty & dirty with the Republicans. Unless he intends to end up another Carter or Clinton. Rahm may not be the most likable type but he brings a big load when you need it.
also, Rahm strikes me as more of a fixer/wheeler-dealer type than an ideologue. Which is exactly what Obama wants.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 8 2008 19:32 utc | 43

common sense

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 8 2008 20:24 utc | 45

@Darien Campwell before you come it here and accuse a regular if newish contributor of trolling, you would be wise to a/ ensure your own credibility had been earned in this forum and b/Refrain from playing the man and instead play the ball with a few facts
I dunno who runs that site you linked to which professes to have Rahm’s voting record. It had three entries under foreign policy. I went to a site I know from previous research to be objective, project vote smart which after emphasising that their archives are still incomplete listed more than 30 foreign policy votes by Rahm.
They include going along with all the war apropriations bills when the dems voted for empire against the wishes of their voters and the promises they made before 2006. It also includes support for shrub rolling up the cost of wars into general appropriations to keep the citizens from knowing how much the adventures cost by voting yes to “Inclusion of Iraq and Afghanistan Military Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations”
I suggest that MoA-ites who are interested in this and who are gonna far more familiar with amerikan legislation than I have any desire to be peruse a more objective site than the one Campwell linked to.
I really suggest that you use fact to support your arguments rather than baseless character shots.
You should know this is coming from someone who has expressed doubts about much of what Obamageddon has written, although that I admit is only because I have elected to suspend disbelief about the new administration until something typically self serving and/or empire serving is committed by the Obama administration. I wanna be wrong but I fear that the new boss turning out to be just like the old boss is an inevitability.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 9 2008 2:12 utc | 47

@jony_b_cool “I believe most if not every nation that has successfully developed a capability in a particular manufacturing sector, in the face of foreign competition, has had to put up some protectionist barriers.”
Sorry I have to disagree with you there. It is true than many countries used to have protectionist barriers just as amerika did and then those countries got rid of those protectionist rules frequently under pressure from amerika who used their at that time strong economy to abuse the superior negotiating position that gave them, the amerikan end of the deal was to abolish some of their protectionism, usually in manufacturing whilst maintaining, even strengthening agricultural protectionism.
I realise that these trade deals have been portrayed in amerika as some sort of silly giveaway where amerika gave way on lots of issues for nothing in return. this was far from the case, the negotiators drove a hard bargain but they looked after certain sectors particularly the rural economy at the expense of other, often manufacturing sectors.
If amerika were to turn around and breach all of the multi-lateral agreements (eg WTO deals) and bilateral (eg US Australia Free Trade deal) agreements, it would immediately weaken it’s bargaining position because instead of playing everybody off as it had in the past it would be pissing everybody off and uniting all of amerika’s trading partners in a bloc of solidarity, a situation that would cost amerika dearly.
The alternative would be to renegotiate with trading partners one by one in a very short timeframe as many of the deals have clauses about getting as good as anyome else. So if amerikan trade negotiaters were to sit down with say Japan or even China and say “How about agreeing that we put a tariff on heavy engineering imports from Japan/China – say an extra 5% on all imported motor vehicles and in return amerika agrees to revoke those pesky rules which stop you guys from sending agricultural produce to us”
A big chunk of other countries would go straight to the WTO and argue that under the terms of their existing deal they were also allowed the agricultural access, that is without them making any change to heavy engineering exports, because that was the new best deal on offer. That amerika had insisted on these clauses mainly to prevent other nations from doing what amerika was now doing, making side deals to subvert trade agreements.
And that is without even considering what the reaction from amerika’s rural heartland would be if their agricultural exports and domestic sales suddenly faced level playing field competition.
Whatever subsidies were in place when adam was a boy and japan and germany first exported cars have been either abolished or ameliorated with side deals, as is the case with all other manufacturing countries, and a trade war to re-open them wouldn’t help the amerikan economy in the least.
How can amerika hope to trade competitively when it tries to play a shell game with labour costs especially labour training costs by importing workers that other societies have borne the cost of training, because training it’s own workers would leave less money available for the corporate welfare state.
Amerika won’t be competitive until the real costs of manufacturing are out in the open.
Every item produced generates a huge corporate welfare surcharge and an even bigger military-industrial bloc surcharge overhang.
amerika is now spending more on warfare than the entire rest of the world put together, even though the corporations don’t get a bill for this, the money to pay for it has to be generated out of foreign trade.
Which brings me to the bit about China. The US China trade deficit is in hundreds, thousands? of billions of US dollars which means China would need it’s head read if it were to re value against the $US, because in effect it would be reducing the amount that it had been promised to be repaid by the same percentage as the revaluation.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 9 2008 2:58 utc | 49

Isn’t this Financial bailout just wonderful?

Just 3 ‘superbanks’ now dominate industry

[snip]

“Consumers are going to be victims of higher and more punitive fees,” Greenberg predicts.
Moreover, many analysts worry about how federal and state authorities, who were unable to prevent the current financial industry meltdown, will be able to monitor the new giant banks that combine a wide range of operations from investment banking to consumer lending.
“Large institutions are impossible to manage prudently, let alone regulate,” says Amar Bhide, a professor at the Columbia Business School.
In fact, existing federal banking laws say that no bank can have more than 10 percent of the domestic deposit market — a threshold recently surpassed by all three superbanks.
When asked whether the government would take any action, a Justice Department official was noncommittal.
“It’s always something we’ve looked at and will continue to look at,” said spokeswoman Gina Talamona. “It’s something we’ve looked at as part of our general antitrust review.”
The reason limits on market share were put in place were so banks didn’t get so big they’d become monopolies that could risk the whole economy, explains Atul Gupta, finance department chair for Bentley University in Boston.
But now the government appears to be pushing banks in the direction of more consolidation. The Treasury is pouring some $250 billion of taxpayer money into healthy financial institutions, and some of that is being used by stronger banks to snap up weaker rivals.

[snip]

Posted by: Rick | Nov 9 2008 4:45 utc | 51

Debs:

[snip]
The number one problem is that there will be incredible impetus, from the sort of argument in this thread for amerika to turn the clock back and recreate it’s industrial base.
I hate to be the one to tell ya but the chances of that working are slim to none. If amerika tried that it’s people really would be competing head to head with the semi-slave piece workers in Latin America and Asia.
[snip]
As far as I can see the major problem confronting amerika is that the resources that built the empire are close to exhausted. The mines, forests and oil wells have had all the easy ‘earns’ taken out of them which makes any manufacturing based on those resources unable to compete on price.
[snip]

Although I firmly agree with you that America, as a society, has neglected educating its children properly. But believe me, to repeat a phrase I just recently used, we’all just didn’t fall off the back of a turnup truck. Without a doubt, too many of us seem to watch the boob tube without end to our detriment. Yet, having worked as a manufacturing engineer for more than one large manufacturer, I can assure you that large labor pools are not necessarily needed in modern manufacturing, mining, forestry or agriculture. Efficiency thru method and machine can work wonders. And even with today’s high fuel rates, shipping/trade costs for materials/subassemblies is not usually an obstacle. As just a small example from history, Japan has always exported more manufactured items than either you or I could even imagine with limited raw resources. Why should I believe that Americans, seemingly alone in your implications, suffer such limitations among nations? This line of thinking of yours is starting to get old. And speaking of old, the products, services and education needed for the world’s future will bear little resemblance to yesterday’s needs.

Posted by: Rick | Nov 9 2008 5:49 utc | 53

annie, obamag,
Palin is trying to keep afloat, and anything that keeps her swirling around the edge of the bowl will keep her from getting flushed like she deserves to, even a controversy about her shopping spree.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 9 2008 8:37 utc | 55