Being a single parent, I was never exactly rollin' in the dough, but I've done alright. I have a decent job and no credit card debt. I've had to get creative- or what I thought at the time was creative- a time or two, but overall it hasn't been too bad...

Until now.

Between the cost of gas, groceries and everything else, it's safe to say I am broke. Extremely, pathetically broke. After paying $4 for a measly gallon of milk the other day, I honest to God thought I was going to vomit... and I won't even talk about what I did the first time I paid close to $60 for a single tank of gas.

That's why I experienced something dangerously close to blind panic when I realized both of my daughters need new shoes. Kristen's were getting so small she could barely fit her little feet into them anymore, and Kyla's toes were poking out of hers.

Sigh.

Normally a thing such as shoe shopping is not enough to make me burst into tears, but considering I have no money (did I mention I'm broke??), that's exactly what happened. I was so distraught I actually had to have a friend of mine review my (bleak) budget with me and help me figure out how in the world I could fit two new pairs of shoes into it.

After crunching the numbers, my buddy gave me the bad news- I could afford exactly $30, including tax- on shoes.

Yikes.

I typically spend more than that on one pair of shoes for one child... this is now my total budget?

Gulp.

I didn't think it could be done- I realize I have instantly dropped from middle-class to poor. Similar to suddenly dropping 10,000 feet in an airplane during turbulence, the feeling is not a good one. It can make a person like me physically ill.

Ugh.

Alright, enough of the pity party. Poor or not, I had no choice. The kids needed new shoes, and I had to buy them. Period. So off we went, in search of cheap-yet-sturdy-yet-socially-acceptable footwear... the sort of thing I didn't believe actually existed.

It wasn't easy, and it took some bargain hunting, but I am happy to report I was not only able to purchase two pairs of shoes for the little ones, but 6 pairs of socks as well, all for the bottom-barrel price of $27.66.

And yes, that includes tax.

While I'm certain no one who reads this will find themselves nearly as excited as I am, this is never the less a small victory in a very large, very expensive, very jacked up world... and I'm feeling pretty smug. So maybe I can survive this recession the uber-rich politicians keep trying to convince me is just part of my imagination after all.

Time will tell, I guess. Until then, baby's got a new pair of shoes!

I had never heard of this concept of a "social contract" that business and government have with America. I work in a recruitment related field so if it existed, I thought I would know about it. As a human being I was aware of it as a colloquial dream we have perpetuated by the stories told by our parents and grandparents.

My family history doesn't go back that far here in America. My great grandparents arrived from Poland and the Ukraine pre-WW1 and went to work in the gritty factories of Chicago because it was a better living and opportunity than they had back in Europe. (poor peasant potato farmers I usually say) and the economic opportunity has kept us here in Chicago ever since.

My grandparents generation went on to slightly boring but consistent blue collar jobs with pensions and my parent's generation went on to white collar jobs after getting college educations. Some of them got a pension and health insurance and others did not. My generation doesn't even get a shot at a pension. Companies have found that they can hire good people without it and they tell us that a 401K is really the same thing. (for reference I am 33)

So, we have these 401Ks that seem to never make money fast enough to accrue enough funds to equal what a pension would. They plummet in value every 10 years or so in recessions, and someone changes the funds available without asking or telling us. Most of us have health insurance through our jobs. We pay handsomely for it, between $100 and $300 per month per person.  And then when something happens that requires medical care, the insurance only covers 1/2 the costs. It is totally possible to go bankrupt with health insurance coverage these days because most coverage is crap compared to what my family had back in the 1980's.

TIME says that there is an "implied" social contract in America where you give a company (or number of companies) your time and energy and they give you "a basic level of economic security provided you work hard and took responsibility for your family". (direct quote from TIME July 28, 2008 p 42) And I think things have changed. This contract implied or not doesn't really exist anymore. I see businesses every day making decisions to give workers less and people have to get more creative trying to survive.

I think the social contract is more like this now.

1. A company promises to pay you as little as they can for your time. This sounds pessimistic but I have seen the proof on paper that you are paid what they can get you for with your experience rather than what you are worth or how much "the job" pays. You have to wait years to work your way up the ladder to make a good wage and then marketers and your neighbors taunt you daily to buy everything in sight to keep up with the Joneses. 56% of the people who made over 100K a year said even they can't expect to afford health care, college or a secure retirement anymore.  And 100K a year is a lot of clams. (I don't make anywhere near that. ) I do realize that these businesses have to keep costs low in order to compete with India and China, but somehow I'd rather see the cuts come from other areas that don't erode the culture in America and impede our ability to raise families. 

2. Marketers will prey on you from every direction. A lot more people could make it through hard times if they had savings but the national savings rate is negative now. All the "stuff" and services you "must" have seems to replace the financial security your grandparents achieved. Just say no didn't work for reducing drug use in the 80's and I think that the disposable consumer culture will probably continue here too.

3. Health Issues will cost you. Most young people don't need much care because you haven't gotten to the age where things start falling apart yet and we don't have any concept of how much it costs to survive a serious health issue like cancer or bypass surgery. Both my parents had heart surgery in the late 1990's and they were 50 & 60K each. We paid about 10K each of those costs and the insurance paid the rest. I just heard someone at my dad's workplace had bypass surgery last month and it cost $100K. I know they have really poor health insurance there, and I can guess that the guy might have had to pay 50K out of pocket. Even dental issues are expensive. I need have needed a crown for about 5 years and because there is no pain or damage being done since the root canal and filling, I am holding off on the $1,000.00 price tag since dental insurance is only going to pay 1/2 and I would rather save the $ for a real emergency like fixing the 7 year old car I have or paying for the radiator heat to be fixed in my condo.

4. Retirement is going to be difficult. Very difficult. Some people wonder if social security will be around in 2040 when I turn 65. I personally, think it will be. It may not be nearly enough though. Most of us will have some 401K savings but as the Frontline Retirement special found, most people make crucial mistakes with managing their 401K and end up loosing a lot of money and getting little out at the end. (and then have to go back to work) Some tips include, never take a lump sum benefit, due to the tax penalty, never just let it ride and not watch the performance and watch for trading and management fees eating up your money. It also helps not to own a McMansion when you retire and live within your means before retirement. Saving money (like 10% of after tax income) on the side and investing it in some low risk but higher than inflation yields is also a smart way to prepare. And well let's hope medicare still exists in 2040 also, and that doctors and hospitals still accept it as payment.

5. Creativity & Leverage are the new working hard. Money makes more money, it's all who you know and being clever with side jobs or side businesses usually helps. Yes, saving a large percentage of your income by living simple and investing it can help you have the "power of compounding interest" as they say. Keeping in touch with people and maintaining your network helps with job opportunities and side opportunities to make some income. Starting weekend jobs or part time businesses online or otherwise helps too. I find people living simply and leveraging clever ways to work in more than one place are the ones that will have what they need later on. Getting into an industry that is doing well in the economy also helps but that may take pro-active skill re-training. Paying off your mortgage early and not moving also helps. You loose thousands of dollars on the services and fees associated with that transaction every time you move, and  we all know you pay 3x the value of your loan in interest if you really pay your mortgage over 30 years. After that you are seriously in the hole.

The only contract I think we really have now is that everything will change by the time the 30 somethings reach retirement age. The only thing we have to rely on is ourselves. In general business is struggling because the US has passed it's peak and we will be in a pack of "also rans" soon. Companies in the US will not see the skyrocketing growth that they saw post-war in the last 60 years with China, India and Eastern Europe emerging as super-economic powers. This coupled with dwindling natural, energy and food resources will make the next 50 years a post US dominant era that will be much harder and more global.

I actually believe if the US was more competitive with skills and education we would do well in a world economy but I haven't yet seen the expertise or drive to innovate. All I see every day is the drive to reduce expenses and cut resources in business and make short term gains with little or no thought about long term survival. I feel like the country is being run by the lowest common denominator MBAs right now and the next 10 years for us commoners are going to be difficult as a result, as we all lack the jobs/growth that they sucked/poached out in the short term and ran off with the profits.

So, enough about all that negativity.

How do you plan on coping with the changing game living and working in the US in the next 50 years?

A few more details are required, though, for the sake of clarity.

Talking about the 1930 depression, he says that it “was a social as well as economic breakdown. Our present situation bears no resemblance to this.”

What precisely are the social and economic breakdowns he is referring to here? Where does social breakdown stop and economic breakdown start? Or vice versa? If they both co-existed and lead to the horrible depression, how did they come to co-exist? And what are we facing now – just an economic breakdown?

What happened in the Great Depression – the events – are written in great detail… what seems to be missing is a solid set of explanations about the inter-relations between the events.

Other assurances about the current scenario not being anywhere close to the harshest slumps of the past are hardly comforting. Apparently the 1929 crash was preceded by a five year bull run. Could the current scenario be a pre-cursor to worse things? If it is not – we need a few more convincing arguments. Some of the hand grenades lobbed at today’s economic that he mentions – the subprime mortgages, the credit squeeze, high oil prices – seem to be quite recent. How much more of these can be withstood, and for how long?

The second page of the article provides even more evidence that we are gazing at the future through a thick mist. We need to look harder, and be bolder in facing what we see.

We are a global economy, an economy with better ability to mitigate risks by spreading it across continents. And if the lesson being learnt, as he rightly mentions, is that the business cycle isn’t dead, what awaits us when it does go down. The answer is right there in the last sentence – “The present economy would have to get much, much, much worse before it warranted the same appraisal.”

And just saying that it is not “that” worse right now does not in any way mean that it won’t get “that” worse.

But let me begin with this...I really can't see myself paying $4.00 for a cup of anybody's coffee.   Sorry, Mr. Starbuck...but it is just the way it is.  I just can't see it.

I know people are all wrapped up in image...but does holding a cup with 'Starbucks' logo really have more value than a cup with 'Dunkin Donuts' logo on it.

I mean all through the Decocratic Primaries...people were saying that Obama attracks the Starbuck crowd...and Hillary the Dunkin Donuts people.   Huh????

Why all this division?

Breaking people down by coffee lines...it is all a bit too much.

Maybe it is just that I am not a coffee person. 

My father being Jamaican...and Jamaica being a British Colony once upon a time...so what do the Brit's drink?   Tea, of course.   And so that is what most Jamaicans drink.  So, our household is basically all tea drinkers...following right after daddy and our Jamaican hertiage and tradition.  And it extends all the way down to daddy's grand-children and great-grand children...and since they are basically still kids we haven't gotten to the fourth generation yet.  Who will also undoubtedly also mostly be a bunch of tea drinkers, I am sure.

Starbucks has to have the record for being one of the fastest growing companies in America.  I have never seen a company grown so fast.

But then they seem to have made all the right moves in the beginning.  They started off with statilite stores...branched off into deals where they went into places like Virgin Records and other high traffic locations which proved to be excellent decisions for them.  Because people who purchase $13/$15 CD's certainly also have enough to buy a $4.00 cup of coffee.  And they did.

Starbucks a Seattle based company has 7,100 company owned stores across the country.  Some time this year the company plans to close 600 of its under producing stores.  Which means they will be laying off some 12,000 employees...which the company says it will try to place as many of them as possible at other store locations.

In February of this year, Starbucks fired some 600 other employees and is currently periodically shutting down stores during some regular business hours in order to do some re-training of its employees.

It is probably safe to say...that if you work at a Starbucks that is inside a Barnes & Nobles or a Virgin Records location...or any high volume/high traffic area...your store will probably not be closing.

For a listing of the closing stores Click Link below.

http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/USStoreClosureInfo.pdf

Or go to...

http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=882

And to read more on the story via ABC News Click on the Link below.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5288740

These youtube videos may need some loading time...if so lower the volume all the way and read the blog or all of my blogs until it loads completely.  The stop and go will drive you crazy otherwise.  Thank you.   

And while I am sharing...don't forget to share this blog address with all your friends, family, church, the people upstairs and down the street too...  www.bsmith101.wordpress.com      the place to be when it comes to staying on top of what is important...interesting...and insightful.   Pass it on....

Barack Obama is quite a family man...a man who clearly loves his wife and his children as is evident in his pictures with them, everytime you see him with his wife and in his comments concerning them.  For such passion to extend itself into the public and political area is a gift to those of us who shall soon reap the rewards of it...which shall also be reaped by those of the whole world also when he becomes President of the United States of America in November of this year.

Clearly the people in Germany who gathered to hear him speak recognized that Obama is an extrodinary person...that kind of person only goes around once in a lifetime.

So, to have been on this planet to have seen and heard the likes of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Nelson Mandela etc. we can truly say that we have been blessed.  Because we have truly be blessed to be here in the company of some very extra-ordinary people who have shown us what true love and commitment is all about.

Now, in walks Barack Obama.

From the time he hit the world stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. They saw it then...the press...they all saw it...and when he stepped from the stage they touted him 'The Future of the Democratic Party.'

It was upon that stage as he addressed the members of the convention that Barack Obama literally looked out and saw his destiny. And from the moment he stepped off that stage he began working towards today and where he will be come November of this year, 2008...the President of the United States of America.

Some people don't trust him because they look at him as not being black enough.

Others look at him and say he is too black.

The hispanic say he will only do for black people and forget about us.

 It is quite clear that Obama does not wish for his children or grand-children to inherit the chaos and fear that the Bush Administration has ushered into the United States.

He does not want his daughters...nor their children to live under the cloud of uncertainty of what tomorrow may bring for this country or this world.

Through all of its current troubles, Barack Obama has chosen to shoulder the burden...to take on the responsibility of trying to right this country again...to rewrite the history of American that George Bush and his people so callously sought to undermind and undo.

When he left Harvard, he hit the streets of the ghetto working to undo social ills and injustices. It is in his nature to champion the cause of the people.  When you read about his mother, you see that it runs in the blood...the seeking to unify the world and caring for others.   It is what Barack Obama is all about.

This week in Germany, we got a chance to see that the world too sees something special in Barack Obama.  To hear those people chant 'change' and call out his name was more than moving.

They say that Barack Obama doesn't know enough.  He has no experience...no.  And they are right.  He has not had any experience running with the liars and the cheats who have made up this country's government for years. 

This country needs somebody who isn't down with the 'crew.'  Somebody not afraid to make his own decisions.  Not afraid to be wrong if he thinks it is in the best interest of this country.  Not afraid of second guess himself and yet comtemplate the decision and its overall impact.

This country needs somebody who is not afraid to stand alone.  Who is not afraid to say wrong is wrong.

Give me somebody young and yearning for training.  Don't give me somebody who thinks he already knows everything...and doesn't know nothing.

I don't care who goes into the White House or who has gone into it in past...they all had to learn on the job.  It is not like going to work from one fast food place to another...or from one corporate office into another. 

It is not...it is the White House...the Presidency.  

Until you get voted in...you can't possibly have all of or a fifth of the capabilities to do it.  Most of it comes with on the job-training.  For anybody to say anything else is a lie.  No corporate CEO has ever been under the pressure of the President of the United States...nothing is like the job of being the President of this country.

Barack Obama not only looked Presidential in Germany...he spoke Presidential.  He speaks with authority, leadership, knowledge and a zeal for this country that we have not heard for a very long time.  Give me that any day...because I know the rest will follow.

Unlike any other President of this country...Barack Obama has lived as a child in several other countries.   Having done so he understands other people, their language, their cultures...that gives him a greater sensitivity to other nations that no other President of this country could have possibly had.  On the world stage or on domestic politics Barack Obama is head over heels beyond Senator John McCain.  There is no contest.

For the problems that Bush has brought to America's door...we are going to need somebody who can think outside of the box...not trying to hide within the box.  But a real thinker and doer.  Someone with temperance and perhaps even some tolerance...and between Hillary and Jesse Jackson...and Rev. Jeramiah Wright...Obama has shown that.  And certainly, also, for one thing for sure it will take more than politics as usual to straighten up the Bush messes that we are in.

Just a quick note on Charles Barley.  Like Reggie Jackson and so many other athletes that chose to do for others, Charles Barley while recently out dining came across a young man who was waiting on his table whom he recognized was in need of some help...in order to go on to college.  Barley stepped in and told the young man he would take care of his full college tuition...brings tears to my eyes.   I love these kind of stories.

And I love Charles Barley in that television commercial...he is so annoying. 

Great for you Charles Barley...and you can read more on this story by Clicking and Link below.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Charles-Barkley-tips-well-pays-busboy-s-tuition?urn=nba,95780

Okay, you China Olympics bound people...here is another Chinese word or saying...

Bu yong xie...pronounced   Boo you shay...    Remember that I told that 'bu' is the Chinese negative... well, in this case too...but it depends upon what you want to say...

It translates into 2 meanings...     1.  You're welcome

                                                     2.  No problem...

'No problem' is a popular saying or phrase in China.

If you remember 'xie xie'... pronounced 'sure shay' ....meaning 'thank you.'

Ni hao....you are saying 'hi' to one person       Nim hao...you are saying 'hi' to a group or more than one      

Ni hao ma...    Knee how ma  .....it means   hi, and how are you?    or how are you doing.

Nim hao ma...means  the exact same thing except you are addressing more than one person.     And 'nim'....is pronounced as you think  ...as nimb.

Now, I am going to advance you a little bit....

Wu chew chin sway.... means I want water     (this I forgot to write out in the actual Chinese spelling...I was great for sitting in class and writing down 'what it sounds like'...it was the only way I could learn the language.  Other than that...in less than 30 seconds I would forget).   

So, this means 'I want water' but remember it is not written in the actual Chinese spelling...and of course the Chinese do not really write this stuff out....no.  They use characters...or what we call Chinese characters.  And you have seen what Chinese characters look like...but we have never been able to make them out...or knew that each character symbolizes a Chinese word...and there are thousands of characters...and some even have a gender...to reference male or female.

Now, you have learned something else.   And remember that "wu" ....means 'I' or 'me'... first person singular.    pronounced "woo."

Well, I am suppose to really be doing some work today.  So, I better get to it.

Have a beautiful day...    God bless....

I've been off having surgery, to answer all the questions. But I'm getting back into it now, thanks for the expressions of concern. That's the great thing about working for free - you get to pick your own hours.

Ever seen a dead cat? Ever seen one bounce off the pavement? Use your imagination, then. That's all that is going on right now, economically. If that.

Fact is, the government lies about everything now. Everything. I've become so jaded that I automatically disbelieve everything I hear from official sources. Everything.

Click here for full broadcast

Decoupling Theory: The theory of decoupling suggests that emerging markets have broadened and deepened to the point that they no longer depend on the United States for growth, leaving them insulated from a U.S. recession.

The decoupling theory in no way shuns the globalization theory; all it says is that the major emerging markets primarily the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries have been showing increased economic activities and attracting foreign investments irrespective of the economic trends seen in the US. The theory took much flak off-late after the expose of the housing bubble in the US and subsequent Credit Crunch and Recession. The world markets saw a major downtrend, export driven sectors worldwide were hit by and large (E.g.: IT sector in India)

Demand for Commodities: Generally a recession results in a decreased economic activity, the demand for commodities is expected to fall and in some cases even spur cost-push inflation. The biggest critics of decoupling theory state that recession in the US will result in reduced demand for commodities and thereby hit the emerging economies because majority of their exports are commodity driven. But the supporters of this theory state that the recession is only going to affect the investments in the US and the general public would still be demanding the same level of commodities as before and that there will be no slowdown as such.

On the investment front, due to the declining dollar and interest rates cut by the Federal Bank resulted in diminished returns and hence investments started flowing to emerging economies where the returns were more lucrative (in India in terms of FII). So this resulted in increased economic activities in these economies for a while. However as the recession started finding its root in the export driven sectors in these economies, the companies started feeling the heat and subsequently they showed lower growth margins. Moreover as a result of rapid surge (due to increased foreign investments) these markets reached saturation and were sure to see the downfall. This was seen in the recent market downtrend in India where the stock markets have been falling ever since the start of the year. Now the decoupling theory supports it by stating that these stocks had already reached their peak (Technically say by the P/E) and the people thought that they were overvalued and their selling was imminent and bound to fall, the net sellers being FII. However the critics ridicule it stating that the market went into the bear mode due to increased risks pertaining to US recession and the liquidity crunch resulted in further keeping the investors from making huge commitments monetarily in these emerging economies.

Inflation, the critics of the theory state is an example of the developing nations to hold back the green buck (USD) and purposely devaluing their own currencies to make their exports competitive. This resulted in increased costs of imports for these countries. Now commodities like Crude oil went up. Now since it's valued in dollars and these countries have devalued their currencies thereby passing on increased cost in their country triggering cost-pull inflation where the general input costs for production have gone up resulting in higher priced commodities, making it difficult for the common man. (For e.g. the RBI was accused of selling rupees and buying dollars to boost the export sector and curb inflation but did it work out? It only resulted in import getting costlier prices being passed on to the common man and thus increased inflation.) The supporters of Decoupling theory state that unlike general observation that due to the recession demand for commodities is going to go down, the opposite has happened and the increased economic activity and demand in emerging economies have pushed the prices up while the demand has reduced in the US supporting the theory further.

The increased per capita income in these emerging economies has resulted in improved standard of living and greater domestic demand for goods. Thus the local demand and supply has attained a greater share of GDP and greatly increasing the economic activity in the country. (for e.g. in India itself the rising standard of living has fuelled a great demand for electronic goods and connectivity leading to a boom in the telecom sector and subsequently in the semiconductor sector) The Economist a leading publication states the figure that the income level has seen a rise of 17% in emerging economies as compared to 1.5% in the developed ones.

Finally coming to Exports, figures state that emerging markets send half of their exports to the emerging markets itself. China's total exports to US fell by 5% in the aftermath of housing bubble burst but exports to other Brazil, Russia and India was up by more than 60% and those to the oil producers by 45%. Moreover the export to US now contributes only 8% to Chinese, 4% to India, 3% to Brazil and 1% to Russia's GDP. Thus the emerging economies surely have become more decoupled to the US than before. Moreover the domestic production and consumption has taken forefront.

Conclusion: The present US recession was initiated by the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis and the subsequent Credit crunch. This was followed by worldwide market downfall and at the same time the world witnessed the Food crisis (courtesy droughts, Floods, hoarding, Export bans, Bio-Diesel etc) and the Crude shock (courtesy OPEC's bullying controlling the oil prices due to depreciating dollar and they trying to maintain their purchasing power, or because of the increased demands from China and India). The various reasons are yet to properly justified. Probably another recession in the US accompanied by a rapid economic activity in the emerging countries and devoid of basic commodity shocks is required to properly justify that the Decoupling theory stands or falls!

Feds Seize Two More Banks

A bank employee posts a notice that 1st National Bank of Nevada is in FDIC receivership on Friday, July 25, 2008, after federal regulators closed the bank in Carson City, Nev. Twenty-eight branches of 1st National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank, operating in Nevada, Arizona and California, were closed Friday by federal regulators.

CARSON CITY, Nev. — The 28 branches of 1st National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank, operating in Nevada, Arizona and California, were closed Friday by federal regulators.

The banks, owned by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based First National Bank Holding Co., were scheduled to reopen on Monday as Mutual of Omaha Bank branches, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said.

The FDIC said the takeover of the failed banks was the least costly resolution and all depositors _ including those with funds in excess of FDIC insurance limits _ will switch to Mutual of Omaha with "the full amount of their deposits."

The FDIC also said accountholders can access their funds during the weekend by writing checks or using ATM or debit cards.

As of June 30, the closed banks had total assets of $3.6 billion. That's down from $4.1 billion six months earlier. Most of the assets are in 1st National while First Heritage accounts for $254 million.

Calls to 1st National were referred by a receptionist to Joe Martony, an executive vice president in Scottsdale, Ariz. Martony didn't return repeated calls to his office.

In Nevada, 1st National has 10 branches and employs about 350 people. Five of its branches are in Las Vegas, three are in the Reno-Sparks area, one is in Carson City and one is in Laughlin. Notices of the closure were being posted late Friday.

Fifteen 1st National branches are in Arizona, while Newport Beach-based First Heritage has three branches in Southern California.

Bill Uffelman of the Nevada Bankers Association said Friday the FDIC action "is a reflection of the times for the banks. It's a poor economy."

Uffelman cautioned against the sort of consumer concern that prompted many customers of IndyMac Bank branches to wait for hours in line to withdraw funds across Southern California last week after that bank was seized by federal regulators. All FDIC-insured bank deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC up to $100,000, he noted.

Gov. Jim Gibbons said the bank takeover will be closely monitored in Nevada "to ensure there's minimal disruption to business and that employees' jobs are protected as much as possible."

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano spokeswoman Shilo Mitchell said in a statement that the FDIC's takeover of 1st National is not indicative of the overall banking climate in Arizona.

"It's very important that Arizonans know that their deposits are secure," said Felecia Rotellini, superintendent of Arizona Department of Financial Institutions. "They are well-managed and the 1st National Bank of Arizona issues should not cause any panic in Arizona."

The first two parts of this article [part 1] [part 2] suggested that the drive for ever increasing rates of wealth accumulation fuelled a process which gradually knit the entire world into a single economic system dominated by the industrialized West. Having benefited from a century of dramatic revolutions in production technology, new sources of raw materials and labor, and from geographical expansion of production and consumption, the system settled into a period of saturation and stagnation beginning in the late 1960s. Institutions which earlier in the 20^th century had played a role in saving the accumulation system from the crisis of the 1930s depression by promoting adequate levels of demand— public welfare, regulation of finance, agreements with trade unions—were now considered obstacles constraining private investment. The central objective of the moves made to eliminate these obstacles was to bring down labor costs. In the period characterized by the ideology of neoliberalism entrepreneurs used the ruse of the “free market” to relocate their operations anyplace in the world where wages were lower, while ignoring the damaging effects of these economic displacements on affected communities and the general economy.

The natural outcome of these developments was the decline of purchasing power for the majority of citizens in what had been the most industrialized countries. In order to preserve the system it became imperative to somehow bolster flagging consumption without increasing wages. The answer to this problem came in the shape of the growing arsenal of credit instruments which proliferated from the 1980s onward. While keeping the system from immediate collapse, the credit-based economy became decoupled from the actual production of goods and services and came to be characterized by inflating and deflating financial bubbles.

With the help of financial speculation, lack of government regulation, and the intensive use of public funds to compensate private losses, a general credit bubble has now grown to unprecedented proportions. This presents a lose-lose situation in which deflation of the bubble brings severe economic losses at personal and institutional levels, while actions to prevent the bubble’s deflation only cause further growth of the bubble and increase the level of disruption its deflation will inevitably cause later.

Future prospects

Given the steady decline of wages relative to prices over the past 40 years, the economic policies practiced by the world’s major powers and by transnational institutions like the World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund are nothing short of lunacy. The more consumption and demand drop the greater are the attempts to beat down the “overhead” of wages via anti-trade union laws anti-welfare legislation, swelling the ranks of the unemployed to increase competition for scarce jobs, contracting public services to private speculators and more offshoring of jobs. And the lower real wages go the more intense are the efforts to bridge the consumption gap using credit (which itself is in peril as a “profitable” business). The bigger the credit bubble grows and the more banks and businesses fail as a result, the shriller the cry from businesses for governments to speed up the money printing presses, further devaluing currency and pumping up inflation. Because, in truth, although inflation is pilloried as the great Satan by neoliberal economists, it is wage inflation that is the true target of their wrath.

In the Western world, the United States and Britain have gone furthest down the road of market liberalization and credit dependency. So it is not surprising that they are the hardest hit of the former industrial nations by the current phase of the crisis, with massive stock market losses, failure of major financial institutions, rising bankruptcy rates and levels of unemployment, and sharply declining consumption.

However, despite recent talk of other economies being “decoupled” from the financial Armageddon in Britain and the US, the integrated nature of the world economy has allowed the contagion from those economies to spread around the world. News from continental Europe, Australasia, India and China attests to similar patterns of downturn in those places.

Crisis is a catalyst for change in the system, and the world economic system will not emerge from the present crisis without some alterations to its landscape. The possibilities range from struggling on with the application of a few patches to deep social unrest and profound structural changes.

As the quote which opens this article says about the current crisis, “When or where it will end, no one can say with certainty.” Below, some of the possible and not so possible responses to the crisis are examined.

Role reversal

Although it is impossible to predict the precise outcome of this crisis, what does seem clear is that the economic hegemony of the United States will continue to wane: it is increasingly unlikely that the US will resume the role it held in the years following the Second World War as driver of the world economy. Some writers suggest that hegemonic roles will be transposed, with China and/or India assuming first place in a newly emerging, Asian-centered, world economy. The de-industrialized countries of the West would, in turn, become low wage zones on the fringe of the Asian powerhouses. This scenario seems doubtful when the nature of the economic activity currently being fuelled by Western demand and capital in the developing world is considered.

While recent economic activity has resulted in the emergence of limited infrastructure improvements in the developing world, these have been focussed on processing for export: goods and money flow through designated processing zones but have very restricted effects on the lives of people not directly tied to the manufacturing and export industries. The workers in these export processing operations are typically unable to purchase the very products they help to manufacture. In most cases, the capacity to produce for local/national consumption has been relatively unaffected. This is evident from the high levels of rural and urban poverty which still prevail in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Caribbean region--all highly integrated into the export processing system of the world economy.

The financial crisis may, therefore, have the two-fold effect of diminishing direct investment in the export dominated economies of the “developing” world, and of curtailing effective demand for imports in the West, which had been propped up by the flawed system of substituting credit for capital. China, with its prior experience in national development, its centralized decision-making structure and its huge internal market, is best placed of any of the developing nations to function autonomously in the face of a global downturn. Yet, with its vast holdings of increasingly worthless US debt and its dependence on imported raw materials, even China may find itself facing a perilous transition.

The old accumulation toolkit

In the past, the global economy has always recovered from its periodic downturns and intensified the process of accumulation and investment. The first part of this article [link] looked at the economic tools which have been used to overcome blockages in the process of accumulation: new technology; development of new markets; cheaper materials; cheaper labor. What are the chances of these tools working in the current situation?

Technology
The capacity of technology to overcome the current phase of the economic crisis seems questionable. Consider the fact that the greatest technological advance of the past century, the rise of the computer, coincides almost exactly with the downturn of Western industry and the decline of real wages. In fact, it is no coincidence that computer-assisted production (and the production of computers) failed to bolster the economy. Computers were mainly used to lower the cost of production by substituting machine for human labor--which is to say that they were used to put people out of jobs (notwithstanding the growth of a new category of workers dedicated to servicing computers). This clearly shows that the power of technology to overcome economic stagnation is contingent on other structural factors in the economy and society. An economy which is predisposed to the reduction of labor costs will apply all innovations towards realizing that goal.

Going green

The current phase of the economic crisis coincides with another crisis which is perhaps even more profound for the future of humanity—the looming threat of climate change. The development of environmentally friendly technologies is essential to address the threat to the natural environment, and perhaps provides one of the best avenues for boosting the economy. Retooling the energy industry to take advantage of renewable energy sources could be a globe-spanning endeavor with attractive prospects for investment. But the task is enormous, and, paradoxically, the prevailing lackluster economic environment may inhibit progress in this sphere. Moreover despite the currently fashionable genuflections towards the institution of private enterprise, the private sector would not be able to coordinate the resources needed to manage a rapid and timely world-wide shift to renewables. And, even if such a project were attempted in the private sphere it would eventually reproduce the social and economic patterns which perpetuate the boom and bust syndrome. To reap ongoing economic benefits, such an enterprise would need to be maintained in the public sphere.

 Regardless of which sector manages the project, the fact that green technology is a replacement for existing energy technology means that the greatest economic opportunities would occur at the beginning of the project; later dividends would be in lieu of, rather than in addition to, existing opportunities in the energy field.

Market expansion

The discovery or creation of new markets, a key to economic expansion in the past, is an unlikely source of significant new growth. As argued above, within the last hundred years the world economic system reached the limits of geographical growth, and within the last 50 years consumption reached saturation within the constraints of the current system, given the impossibility of endlessly expanding both consumption and accumulation.

Cheaper raw materials

With the price of raw materials increasing and their availability decreasing, salvation in the form of cheaper raw materials is not likely. New ways of producing and using materials more efficiently are always emerging, but whether this can happen with a force to significantly boost the world economy is questionable.

Cheaper labor

As already described, reducing the cost of labor is a trend already well underway and, far from solving the accumulation problem, is the main factor undermining the world economy.

There are two other possibilities which are not formally part of the old toolkit for stimulating accumulation, but which have played a role throughout economic history nonetheless.

Failure

One of these is the acceptance of circumstances brought about by economic failure. Breakdown of the credit system and concomitant downturn in the world economy would impose greatly lowered quality of life expectations upon people around the world and would be utterly catastrophic for many. Yet, as amply demonstrated by the list of failed states and economies currently in existence, people can adjust to existing for relatively long periods of time under circumstances of deprivation or severely reduced expectations. Absent the political will to construct a successor to a collapsed world economy, this unattractive option could become the reality for millions.

War

Large scale war stimulates production and at the same brings about great destruction of property as well as life, creating a vacuum into which investment is drawn. Reconstruction in the wake of the Second World War gave a tremendous boost to the economies which were still functioning, especially the US. Sadly, there are interests in existence today (the role in Iraq of Haliburton, Blackwater, and the major oil companies come to mind), which would not resist, and might even welcome the outbreak of major wars as a form of economic stimulus.

The culmination of the current and ongoing crisis is not likely to be measured in years but rather in decades. There is a good chance that the existing system will give the appearance of rallying, possibly more than once, before resuming its torpor and decline. Attempts to deploy the old accumulation toolkit will be made with diminishing success. The process will be uneven, affecting various parts of the world economy in different ways and at different times. There will be an increased prospect of war, both of the regional and general variety.

An alternative?

Amidst the crisis of the world economy there is also the prospect that alternative paradigms for more positive economic relations will emerge. These would need to embody principles which moderate, if not reverse, the traditional patterns of domination and ceaseless accumulation. Central to any alternative model to replace the current madness would be the following transformations:

• From an economy of concentrated wealth to one of distributed wealth - Historically, the concentration of wealth in few hands has been the goal rather than its distribution across society. The dominant ideology grudgingly acknowledges that wealth distribution should take place, but insists that distribution should be no more than a “trickle”, as in “trickle down”. This must be reversed so that top priority goes to mechanisms to distribute wealth for the general welfare of the population. The “trickle down” should be replaced with a “tide” which flows across society.

• From production for accumulation to production for utility - Wealth should be valued for its utility, that is, for its ability to sustain and fulfil human needs, rather than primarily as a tool for driving further accumulation. rather than primarily as a tool for driving further accumulation.

• From unrelenting expansion to achievement of sufficiency - The frantic drive for endless change, ever-new ways to turn a buck, and ever-increasing prosperity for some should be replaced by a the quest to build an economy which delivers a level of comfortable and secure sufficiency for all. “Sufficiency” here means high and sustainable standards of health, nutrition, accommodation, sanitation, education, and recreation for all. A shift in attitude is vital not only to creating a society of equal opportunity but also to bringing human activity into balance with the beleaguered natural environment.

• From a culture of dominance/subservience to a culture of integration/participation - Democratic institutions have been co-opted time and again in the drive for accumulation. This has resulted in the repetition at every level of society of the pattern of disenfranchised majorities pushed to the margins by small power-wielding elites.

There are no "iron laws of history" which would ensure that these transformations come to pass. However, the sheer destructive illogic of the current configuration of the economy and society gives hope that it will give birth to its antithesis.

1. Expect Change.  The workplace is going to remain volatile and unpredictable.  Our only choice is to decide how we will respond.  If you make those decisions in advance you will reduce the uncertainty and vulnerability.

2.  Look inward for your best ideas and solutions.  85% of the process of having confidence about your career direction comes from looking inward first.  Define your unique skills and abilities - then 15% of the process is the application.

3.  You are not in a "recession" unless you think you are.  The old Henry Ford adage is true - "Whether you think you can or think you can't; either way you're right.

What have you personally experienced with the housing market?

The banks, owned by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based First National Bank Holding Co., were scheduled to reopen on Monday as Mutual of Omaha Bank branches, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said.

The FDIC said the takeover of the failed banks was the least costly resolution and all depositors — including those with funds in excess of FDIC insurance limits — will switch to Mutual of Omaha with "the full amount of their deposits."

Click here for full story

Now to extrapolate and expand my analogy I must first define a few things. Note that this is entirely my own interpretation and opinion of these concepts, if you wish to argue any of this please feel free to comment as I greatly welcome any correction or criticism as I am trying to understand these concepts myself. Economics never was one of my better subjects in college, but i think maybe FFXI and the inflation generated by the RMTs has taught me more about it.

First you have to take at face value how corporations work. Corporations are opponents to social programs such as labor unions because this cuts into their bottom line. Corporations are ultimately interested in expanding their bottom line and they will do what is required to get there. If this means conforming to social programs to appease their workers they will do it. If they can move jobs out of the country so that they don't have to deal with social programs they will do it. A corporation is ultimately about keeping itself afloat, more for me and less for you. In my interpretation, if defined politically a great number of corporations could be described as being facist entities.

Now to detail the collapse:

exhibit A- central banking

There exists no lack of conspiracy theories surrounding the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, in this essay I am not supporting any of that chatter. In this instance I shall 'tow the party line' and propose that 'the Fed' is not a conspiracy but a necessity and will describe in detail later how this is so. There are many advocates on the internet that wish for a return to the gold and silver standards of exchange for currency and there is no way at this point for that to happen. It is a stupid and futile suggestion if you just examine the extent of the global economy at this point. How 'the Fed' works is creating the money supply and setting interest rates to counteract the money supply. For the purposes of this essay lets assume that new money is created when there is a spike in demand or a speculation thereof.

exhibit B - the 1980's

Those sinful Reagan years! Wall Street glorified in film with the stories of mega successful stokebrokers taking on the world and making a 'killing' from it. Cool 80's guys, power stoke brokers doing mountains of cocaine while calling themselves sharks for their lack of business ethics. Communism is defeated by spending the communists into the ground. There is apparently nothing that can crush the prosperity of capitalism and we all believed it then. The 1980's were the golden age for the emerging world economy and big business. At least I think so from how it portrayed itself in film and literature ( i like Brett Easton Ellis alot). There was a recession at the start of the 1990's that grinded most of this prosperity to a halt.

exhibit C - how the government works vs how people think that it works

There are many types of law, and I am no lawyer but I can teach you a little of what I know. First you must understand that the United States was originally intended to be a constitutional republic. That is to say, not a democracy but instead a republic with rights gaurunteed by the constitution. OF course most of this was done away with a while back because of democracy, don't go blaming Bush this is old stuff. Democracy is what the people want and people want civil liberties and workers rights ect. People want affordable health care and debt consolidation. People want security, infastructure and education. These things all come with a price and that price is socialism. All sorts of laws come from administrative law which is there to enforce social programs. There is also procedural law which comes from the verdicts of precedent court cases, that is to say jury decisions (sometimes judges/justices) but ultimately democratic. The socialism is there because of a demand that was created democratically.

As I noted earlier, corporations are ultimately facist in their intent to supress social practices in favor of greater investment and a larger bottom line. The facism is there because of a demand that was created democratically.

So ultimately this country has not been a literal constitutional republic for sometime since most of its necessary social programs are not constitutional but were nontheless created to fill a democratic demand. The current order is something more of a boxing match between Socialsm and Facism with democracy as the referee. However the average Joe probably doesn't understand this or even give a shit. That is to say the consumer is also more caring of their own bottom line than anything else. The system is really a huge spin cycle, whoever has the best argument typically wins.

Left wing favors bigger government to cater to more social programs.

Right wing favors a return to a humbler constitutional republic, however this point of view is now noted as being 'paleoconservatism'.

Most of the current political right caters to a deeper investment in foreign policy and thus maintaining the current United States directed world order. This is basically 'neoconservatism'.

Ok enough of definitions and to break down the economic meltdown to the ground level. Assuming from earlier, 'The Fed' caters to a democratic need for more money to be created, let's examine how money is made and what happens to it. Well nowadays you have direct deposit, e-commerce and other venues that basically turn electronic funds into real money (Real Money Transfer In Real Life). If this didn't work the way that it did and we were on the gold standard still, people would have been pissed a long time ago over this issue. Say you get paid in direct deposit and you get to the bank and they tell you that you can't cash your check because they are past the gold exchange limit. You would be pissed. Say you buy something on ebay from some guy in Pakistan and you pay in US dollars, he then has to withdraw those US dollars. With electronic funds becoming real funds all the time , the framework of globalization and the Fed responding to these democratic demands in mind, it is not too hard to imagine how a crisis of inflation would begin.

Then enter in corporations and the less legitimate white collar criminals. Nevermind that the world is ran by lawyers and businessmen then staffed by poorly educated peons who are kept in line by the media. See it is not hard to understand that by knowing how the system works there would be people out to exploit it. What people don't seem to acknowledge is that this exploitation occurs on every level of the system and that the meltdown is actually democracy imploding and not some conspiracy to destroy democracy.

So in the end you have the honest players that are there to play. Then you have the corporate interests that are there to make money. But then you also have the cheaters who cheated the system and supported the RMT. You have people that are just plain dumb with their money. You have 20 year olds with an 8th grade education and their job at Wendy's to support their 45 year long finance plan on their new Hummer. You have people that will milk the social programs at the expense of the rest of society. You have corporations fattening their bottom lines off of this. You have people willing well above their means thanks to mortgages and other loans where they exchanged equity for short term needs. You have large scale inflation on top of all of this as a response to the globalised economy and the democractic need for more and more money. You have CEOs setting their own wages at whatever they say so per hour. You have celebrities that make a ton for doing very little. All of this plays its part at creating more of a demand for money. What is one of them wants to fill a swimming pool full of $100 bills? That is just creating more inflation in the end.

The mortgage meltdown and the skyrocketing national debt, this could be a breaking point or a lesson learned. My conclusion here is to show that this was not a conspiracy but the result of democracy guiding capitalism. Most of everyone involved in the process had their part in the collapse of the system. I don't know for sure if this is totally how it works, this is just how I have came to understand it.

"This is not the time to be optimistic or pessimistic. It is time to be realistic. Our whole system is built on credit expansion. We have to grow credit year over year in order to keep the economy growing. The economy is not going to grow; it is going to enter a recession. And once it enters a recession, it is going to cascade..."

The interviewer responded with a "so you know more than Greenspan" on this... wonder is she would be dumb enough to ask the same question even today.

According to NetImperative, traffic to price comparison sites is down as people go straight to the branded sites - 30% down to 247electrical in particular.

Dominic Yacoubian, 247electrical's owner, suggests that shoppers are retreating to the branded sites in order to be sure of their money.

I'm not so sure. It's difficult to get any view of the traffic to branded sites as a whole, as we'll rely on named retailers and manufacturers giving is the info. But I wonder if a 30% drop in traffic is more symptomatic of a drop in people spending money whilst they remained concerned about a recession. I wonder if people just don't want to buy anything right now - bargain or not.

Traduction "ça ne fait aucun doute, Wall Street s'est saoûlé, et c'est une des raisons pour lesquelles je vous ai demandés de couper les caméras de télévision. Wall Street s'est saoulé et maintenant elle a la gueule de bois. Reste à savoir dans combien de temps elle se ressaisira et arrêtera de manipuler tous ces produits financiers farfelus. Par ailleurs, nous n'aurons bientôt plus de problèmes de logements car Laura " (NDLR: sa femme) " est aujourd'hui à Dallas pour essayer d'acheter une maison"

Ou comment expliquer la récession mondiale avec un oeil malicieux mais aussi teinté d'un certain réalisme, pour la critique des traders évidemment. Et question alcool, vous pouvez le croire George W. Bush, qui a fait de nombreuses cures de désintoxication, les fameuses "Rehab" chères à Amy Whinehouse, le futur ex-président connait très bien. Un expert!
En revanche, ce côté toujours soucieux de faire rire l'auditoire me fait penser à quelqu'un, mais qui?

Et vous?

This week, Congress issued a report, titled “Equality in Job Loss: Women are Increasingly Vulnerable to Layoffs During Recessions,” that may — if read in its entirety — finally, officially and definitively sound a death knell for the story of the Opt-Out Revolution. The report, commissioned by Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, states categorically that mothers are not leaving the workforce to stay home with their kids. They’re being forced out.

Women — all women, mothers or not — were hit “especially hard” hard by the recession of 2001 and the recovery-that-never-really-was, the report states. “Unlike in the recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s, during the 2001 recession, the percent of jobs lost by women often exceeded that of men in the industries hardest hit by the downturn. The lackluster recovery of the 2000s made it difficult for women to regain their jobs — women’s employment rates never returned to their pre-recession peak.”

While prior recessions tended to spare women’s jobs relative to men’s, that trend has been reversed in the current downturn, thanks in part to women’s progress in entering formerly male industries and occupations, and in part to the fact that job sectors like service and retail, which still employ disproportionate numbers of women, have suffered disproportionate losses. And this — not a calling to motherhood — accounts for the fall, starting in 2000, of women’s labor force participation rates.

“Women may be more susceptible to the impact of the business cycle than they were when they were more highly concentrated in a smaller number of non-cyclical occupations, like teaching and nursing,” the report states. “There is no evidence, however, that mothers are increasingly ‘opting out’ of employment, in favor of full-time motherhood. For this story to be true, the employment rate of non-mothers would have had to diverge sharply from that of mothers, which has not been the case.”

In fact, Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, which released the report, proved in earlier research that there was no evidence at all for the belief that having children was causing women to drop out of work. On the contrary: the likelihood that a woman with children at home would leave the labor force decreased dramatically from 1984 to 2000, and continued to fall significantly right up to 2004. This downward trend held for women of all age groups and educational levels — except for women in their thirties with advanced degrees, for whom the numbers remained stable over time. “The data stand in opposition to the media frenzy on this topic,” Boushey wrote for the Center for Economic and Policy Research in 2005. “The main reasons for declining labor force participation rates among women over the last four years appears to be the weakness of the labor market.”

Men, of course, were hit hard by the recession and weak recovery, too; in fact, as Louis Uchitelle of the Times reported earlier this week, the workforce participation rates of men aged 25 through 54 have dropped from 96 percent in 1953 to 86.4 percent today.

But when men in their prime working years drop out of the workforce we don’t say they’ve gone home to be with their kids.

We say they’re unemployed.

Read all of it

WASHINGTON -- Federal regulators shut down two national banks late Friday in the latest chapter of the credit crisis, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. successfully protected all depositors by selling the accounts to Mutual of Omaha Bank.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a division of the Treasury Department, revoked the charters of First National Bank of Nevada, based in Reno, Nev., and First Heritage Bank of Newport Beach, Calif. The FDIC was appointed receiver of both banks.

Both those banks were units of First National Bank Holding Co., based in Scottsdale, Ariz.

First National Bank of Nevada had $3.4 billion in assets and $3.0 billion of deposits, making it a relatively large failure by historical standards.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121703904765687047.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

AFTER the Labour party defeat at Glasgow East, one of the safest Labour seats in the country, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stated that he will not be changing the policies of the Labour Party, it will continue to hand billions to the bankers and cut everybody else’s wages.

Quite succinct, dontcha think?

At Lenin's Tomb, there's a terse explanation of why Labour lost:

They gave in to the City and the rich on tax evasion, declared a freeze on public spending, advertised for bids on the privatised delivery of welfare, and announced a 'revolutionary' shake-up of benefits for the unemployed and incapacitated that will treat both like criminals.

Tony Woodley, leader of the country's biggest union, Unite, has called for a purge of the Tory entryists that call themselves "New Labour":

Just three words from Gordon Brown could transform Labour's prospects even now: "Blairism is dead." Already I can hear the objections from remaining defenders of the faith - drop the Blairism that won Labour three elections?

Alas, each victory at the polls was won with 2m fewer voters than the one before. We have run out of road there - and the Tories have had a makeover. But there is a more profound reason why we cannot look to 1997 for lessons. The world has changed. The Blairite "all things to all people but more things to rich people" approach could get by when the world economy was booming. Trickledown theory only works when it's raining money.

Alas, Gordon thinks that rainclouds will gather within two years, so it's not going to be easy to reason with him - and besides, he's made amends with the Blairites.

I look forward to seeing Woodley's name at the bottom of the People Before Profit Charter alongside those of union leaders Jeremy Dear
(National Union of Journalists), Brian Caton (Prison Officers Association), and Joe Marino (Bakers, Food & Allied Workers Union)...

Inflation and recession are now tightening their grip on the economy with every day that passes. Working people face rapidly increasing prices, especially for food and fuel; government led pay restraint; rising unemployment and a disastrous housing crisis.

At the same time the super-rich continue to enjoy huge profits, salaries and bonuses - yet pay less tax than under the Tories.

The desperation felt by many is having equally serious political effects: the resurgence of the Tories and an increase in anti-immigrant and fascist arguments.

We need a coordinated response to these threats. As part of this response please add your name to this Charter and then move support for the Charter at your trade union, party or campaign organisation.

1. Wage increases no lower than the rate of inflation as given by the Retail Price Index. No to the government’s 2 percent pay limit.
2. Increase tax on big companies. Introduce a windfall tax on corporation superprofits, especially those of the oil companies.
3. Repeal the Tory anti-union laws. Support the Trade Union Freedom Bill.
4. Unsold houses and flats should be taken over by local councils to ease the housing crisis. No house repossessions. For an emergency programme of council house building.
5. Stop the privatisation of public services. Free and equal health and education services available to all.
6. End the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and use the money to expand public services. Stop the erosion of civil liberties.
7. Abolish tax on fuel and energy for old people and the poor. Re-establish the link between wages and pensions.
8. No to racism. No to the British National Party. No scapegoating of immigrants.
9. Reintroduce grants and abolish tuition fees for students.
10. Increase the minimum wage to £8.00 an hour.

Many workers and trade unionists are now engaged in strikes and protests to defend their pay, jobs and services. We pledge ourselves to support their action and to support the campaigns that are dedicated to protecting working people, including:

• Unite Against Fascism
• Public Services not Private Profit
• Defend Council Housing
• Stop the War Coalition
• Keep Our NHS Public

Please return to: People Before Profit Charter, BM 6035, London WC1N 3XX or email your name and details to peoplebeforeprofitcharter@googlemail.com

Comment stopper ou au moins mettre un frein à ce mouvement apparemment irréversible? Les États souverains ne peuvent s’y opposés et encore moins les groupes d’intérêts sociaux, humanitaires ou écologistes.

On en vient à souhaiter que ce système se saborde lui-même et jette par son inconsistance les fondements de sa propre chute.

La récession américaine à venir, la crise du crédit (subprime) et leurs répercussions sur le commerce et le système financier mondial pourraient éventuellement mener à une nouvelle grande dépression économique. La baisse de la demande du principal client des puissances économiques montantes en Orient n’épargnera pas ces dernières d’une baisse de leurs activités économiques.

Alors, pourquoi ne pas la désirer, cette crise? Cela forcerait les nations à opter pour de nouvelles méthodes d’allocation plus équitables des biens et des services, comme ce fut le cas dans les turbulentes années 30 du siècle dernier. On peut citer le New Deal aux États-Unis ou les politiques du Front Populaire en France.

On remettrait ainsi en question l’ordre économique mercantile mondialisé et favoriserait l’implantation d’une production locale et d’une consommation responsable moins axée sur la frivolité.

Les producteurs locaux seraient aussi avantagés car on ferait appel à leurs services au lieu d’importer de l’autre bout de la planète des produits dispendieux en coûts environnementaux et de transport.

De plus, cela est sans compter l’impact positif sur la préservation de l’écosystème et sur l’exploitation des ressources planétaires en conséquence d’une baisse de la consommation.

Il est vain de croire que la décroissance et la simplicité volontaire vont s'imposer par elles-mêmes sans un ébranlement de la structure économique actuelle. La situation économiquement difficile des futures années risque de réussir là où les bonnes intentions passées ont échoué.

L’Humain ne change pas par plaisir ou par grandeur d’âme, mais seulement lorsque le contexte l’impose.

Maybe I find meetings lonely:

lost in a sea of sleepy coworkers.

Scanning the crowd for young folk,

anyone who knows me.

II.

Playing with numbers to paint smiles:

please don't pretend those graphs are positive.

I think we all get it, man,

the economy sucks.

III.

Don't blame me, blame the stock market:

It traded my dreams of fiji away.

It's not that I don't like you,

I just like beaches more.

The modern financial system has been devised so that a segment of the population can continue to gain claims to wealth, or money, without actually creating any wealth themselves. This has been achieved with the creation of an elaborate financial system based on an elastic fiat currency. The issuers of currency use this power to control and own the economy by issuing debt secured with real tangible wealth. The financial industry is essentially a global gambling casino where the currency issuers are privy to inside information and disseminate this information for their own gains through the media outlets which they control. Just like in any controlled gambling business, 'investors' must be lured in with the possibility of attaining huge gains quickly with minimal effort. However, the 'investors' lose the rigged game when the controllers induce a sudden decline in the markets and reap the profits. The masses believe that markets are random and chaotic so it is easy to loot taxpayers life savings while blaming it on the market.

Many people have attempted to trade shares profitably, but for those outside of the industry it is an exercise in futility. The lure of making huge amounts of money from trading still appeals due to people's laziness and greed. It is essential for anyone who is involved in share trading or financial speculation to realize that they are playing with the odds stacked against them. It does not matter whether you choose to invest in securities, bonds or commodities because they are all controlled by the same financial giants.

The concept of the 'economy' has also been obfuscated. Economically speaking, wealth is a tangible good that is deemed valuable by a marketplace and therefore can be traded for other things of value. The global economy can only grow stronger when the world as a whole produces more units of real wealth. Services therefore cannot be truly counted as wealth because they are intangible. In times past, peasants exchanged their services with landowners in return for subsistence conditions and 'protection'. This economic system was called feudalism and the peasants were called serfs. Today, services and other abstract intangible assets have been incorrectly assessed as being 'wealth'. This, along with central banks excessive monetary creation, has created a situation where the link between wealth and claims to wealth has begin to segment from reality. This decoupling could spell disaster for the global financial system and could be the end of 'money' as we know it today.