• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Economy

This isn't going to be good:



Biggest drop in factory orders, shipments in more than a year
POSTED AT 11:35 AM ON MARCH 5, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

   
So much for a fast start to the recover in 2012.  A week after announcing the worst durable-goods orders report in three years, the Commerce Department’s report on factory orders and shipments in January show the worst outcome in sixteen months:

New orders for manufactured goods in January, down following two consecutive monthly increases, decreased $4.8 billion or 1.0 percent to $462.6 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today.  This followed a 1.4 percent December increase.  Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 0.3 percent.  Shipments, up eight consecutive months, increased $4.1 billion or 0.9 percent to $463.6 billion.  This followed a 0.8 percent December increase.  Unfilled orders, up twenty-one of the last twenty-two months, increased $5.4 billion or 0.6 percent to $917.9 billion.  This followed a 1.5 percent December increase.  The unfilled orders-to-shipments ratio was 6.10, up from 6.04 in December.  Inventories, up twenty-seven of the last twenty-eight months, increased $3.9 billion or 0.6 percent to $614.7 billion.  This was at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 0.2 percent December increase.  The inventories-to-shipments ratio was 1.33, unchanged from December.

Inventories, on the other hand, continued to increase — a bad sign as demand drops:

Inventories of manufactured durable goods in January, up twenty-five consecutive months, increased $2.4 billion or 0.6 percent to $372.5 billion, revised from the previously published 0.7 percent increase.  This was at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis and followed a 0.3 percent December increase.  Machinery, up twenty-two consecutive months, had the largest increase, $0.9 billion or 1.5 percent to $61.5 billion.  Inventories of manufactured nondurable goods, up four of the last five months, increased $1.5 billion or 0.6 percent to $242.2 billion.  This followed a slight December decrease.

Reuters actually nails the problem in its analysis:

New orders for factory goods dropped in January by the most in over a year and businesses cut orders for new capital goods, suggesting one of the drivers of the economic recovery faltered at the start of the year.

The Commerce Department said on Monday orders formanufactured goods fell 1.0 percent, a less steep decline than the 1.5 percent loss expected by private forecasters in a Reuters poll. Still, it was the biggest decline since October 2010.

Many economists think the expiration of some tax breaks on capital spending at the end of 2011 led businesses to bring forward investments.

The problem is that the gimmicky tax break in 2011 for capital investments — pushed by the Obama administration and many Republicans as well — didn’t address the key issues in the stagnation since the June 2009 end of the Great Recession.  Like so many other temporary tax changes, the one-year tax break on capital purchases only accelerated capital purchases that would have taken place anyway. This tax break was a larger-scale version of Cash for Clunkers, and it had the same effect, which was to steal demand from future quarters, and that’s exactly what we have seen from both January reports.

Thanks to the ambiguity of tax policy, energy prices, and regulation in the marketplace, perhaps especially the ambiguity in regulations like Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, capital investors can’t price long-term risk at all.  That means that they can’t make informed decisions on capital investment for business expansions and new-business creation, and so their capital stays on the sidelines.  Until we quit tinkering with gimmicky, temporary tax breaks and reform the long-term tax codes, we’re not going to see robust and sustained economic growth.

Notice the last paragraph. This is essentially describing a Capital Strike similar to the conditions in 1937-38 (the worst years of the depression), and for the same reasons: uncertainty caused by ever shifting and unclear government regulations and tax laws. Of course no one will make long term commitments in these conditions, especially if your investment could be wiped out due to capricious government intervention or simply favouritism towards a better connected government crony. In this light, the banking of capital by US busines is the only rational decision, and companies like Apple Inc. that have tens of billions of dollars offshore will not risk that cash by bringing it back to the United States.
 
Clearing out the regulatory thickets will probably have an impressive effect on the US economy (or ours, for that matter):

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/its-time-to-clean-house/253921/

It's Time to Clean House
By Philip K. Howard

America is basically run by dead people: We elect new representatives, but continue on with policy from decades ago. To go forward, Congress needs to confront the past.

This is the first article in a new series The Atlantic is publishing in partnership with Common Good, a nonpartisan government reform organization, devoted to remaking government within budget and without suffocating the American spirit. Each month, America the Fixable will identify a different challenge facing the United States -- regulation, school bureaucracy, healthcare, civil service, campaign finance reform -- and, drawing together a range of expert voices on the topic, offer potential solutions in articles, online discussions, and video reports. This month, the series tackles the scourge of obsolete laws.--The Editors

America is mired in a tarpit of accumulated law. Reformers propose new laws to fix health care, schools, and the regulatory system, but almost never suggest cleaning out the legal swamp these institutions operate in. These complex legal tangles not only set goals but allocate resources and dictate the minutest details of how to meet those goals. Most are obsolete in whole or part.

Running government today is like trying to run a business using every idea every manager ever had.

Nothing important can get fixed without remaking a coherent legal framework.

The flaw is not one that can be solved by deregulation. Almost no one, for example, would disagree about the need to provide education for disabled children. But special education law, enacted in 1975, was structured as an open-ended mandate, and soon spun out of control. Today, special ed consumes 20 percent of the total K-12 budget in America. Programs for gifted children get less than half of one percent, and pre-K education gets almost nothing. Is this a sensible allocation of education dollars? No one is even asking the question.

Congress treats most laws as if they were the Ten Commandments -- except they're more like the 10 million commandments. Most legislative programs do not codify timeless principles of right and wrong. They are tools of social management. These laws allocate social resources -- almost 70 percent of federal revenue in 2010 was consumed by three entitlement programs enacted a half century or more ago. Congress almost never goes back to rationalize these programs. Running government today is like trying to run a business using every idea every manager ever had.

At this point, Democracy is basically run by dead people. We elect new representatives, but society is run by policy ideas and political deals from decades ago. Congress has a tragic misconception of its responsibility -- it sees itself as a body that makes new law, not one that makes sense of old laws.

The problem of obsolete law is not theoretical. It's concrete, affecting daily choices across the country. It adds to cost, and slows productive activity to a crawl.

There are four problems caused by the accumulation of old law:

  1. Too much law causes paralysis. Over the past century laws have piled up, like sediment in the harbor, until it's almost impossible to do anything sensibly. Building a "green infrastructure," for example, is stymied by environmental processes that sometimes consume upwards of a decade.
  2. Laws have unintended consequences. Things never work out as planned. Sometimes a well-meaning idea, such as special education, ends up undermining other important goals.
  3. Priorities change. The more specific a law, the faster it becomes obsolete. In the 1930s, when many farmers were struggling, Congress enacted farm subsidies. The crisis ended by 1941. Now, 70 years later, farm prices are at record highs, and much of farming is done by corporations. But the farm subsidies continue -- $15 billion in 2010.
  4. Legal accretion is not coherent. The goal of law is to provide a framework for a free society. The idea of legal "codes" -- such as the Uniform Commercial Code -- is to provide uniform standards by which people can organize their activities. Federal law attempts no such coherence: the Government Accountability Office found 82 separate programs for teacher quality. The fact that the laws are generally well-intentioned cannot disguise the unavoidable resemblance to a huge legal junkyard.

Fixing what ails America is impossible, indeed illegal, without a legal spring cleaning. The goal is not mainly to "deregulate" but to restate programs in light of current needs and priorities.

As a practical matter, this requires Congress to authorize special commissions to make proposals, area by area. Using the base closing commission model, these proposals would be submitted to Congress for an up or down vote.

Going forward, Congress should incorporate sunset provisions in all laws with budgetary impact. The goal is not to end good programs but to impose a discipline that is essential for a functioning democracy that must constantly make tough tradeoffs.

Accumulated law is not a problem our founders anticipated. They made it hard to enact new laws, thinking they would thereby protect the open field of freedom against too much legal interference. But 200 years later, the land of the free is a legal swamp. It's hard to dredge, because those same checks and balances apply to repealing a law -- with one additional impediment. Once a law is enacted, it is immediately surrounded by an army of special interests. Not one word can be changed until a majority of Congress has run a gauntlet of special interests, flogging each member with campaign funding. That's why changing old law is so politically difficult as to be unthinkable.

"The difficulty lies not in the new ideas," John Maynard Keynes observed, "but in escaping from the old ones." American government is trapped in structures of its own making. The essential first step in rescuing America is a spring cleaning. It's hard to fix things until we can make fresh choices.
 
It is somewhat ironic that the people so much in favour of a "living constitution" don't seem to be able to breathe much life into stale legislation.
 
This is interesting for several reasons. First off, the Senators involved recognize that any political program needs to be done in a short time frame (i.e. five years) otherwise it will be overtaken by events. Secondly, it is focused on spending cuts; and rightly so. The insane increases in spending (5 trillion dollars added to the debt in just three years) can only be addressed through steep spending cuts. Lastly, it is a lesson for us, especially Ontarians. Mike Harris needed to make cuts totalling 3.9% to stabilize the economy and restart economic growth and balance the budgets in the 1990's. Dalton McGuinty has created such a mess that the Drummond report calls for cuts of 17%. Since Mr McGuinty seems set to ignore the report, the next Premier may have to start contemplating cuts on the order of 25% to reign in out of control deficits and tackle a debt load approaching 50% of Ontario's GDP at that point.

Given the US situation is far graver (debt is approaching the 100% of GDP mark, and unfunded liabilities for entitlements, pension and the like are in the hundreds of trillions of dollars range), either bold action needs to be taken very soon to make a controlled drawdown, or the equilibrium will be upset (most likely by an outside agency like the EU economic crisis or war in the Middle East; don't forget the "unknown unknowns" as well) triggering all kinds of negative economic, social and political consequences.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215023-tea-party-senators-unveil-five-year-plan-to-balance-budget-reform-social-security-and-medicare

Tea Party senators unveil five-year plan to balance the budget
By Alexander Bolton - 03/08/12 02:16 PM ET

Members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus on Thursday announed a plan to balance the budget in five years, cutting spending by nearly $11 trillion compared to President Obama’s budget.

The plan, dubbed “A Platform to Revitalize America,” is a wish list of conservative policies, none of which have any chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate or being signed into law by a liberal Democratic president.

The ambitious blueprint would achieve a $111 billion surplus in fiscal year 2017.

“The whole point here is to show we can reasonably balance the budget within a five-year period,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), one of the sponsors of the plan.

This idea that we have to look 30 years out to balance the budget is not only unnecessary, but it’s improbable. We cannot continue to spend at our current rate for 10 more years, much less 20 or 30 more years.

“This is an urgent matter.”

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) also back the proposal, which would overhaul Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The lawmakers said they would turn Medicare into a premium support plan that would give seniors the same healthcare plan as members of Congress. They say this would save an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years.

“What we’re doing is telling seniors that you can have the same plan that congressmen and senators have,” DeMint said. “They get the same premium support that we do.”

The trio would curb Social Security spending by increasing the retirement age over time and indexing benefits to individual incomes. High-income earners would see slower growth in their benefits while low-income workers would see increased benefits.

The proposal would fund Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps and child nutrition programs through block grants.

It would cut most discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels but spare national defense spending from the deep cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act. (Interpolation. This is a bad idea. Everyone needs to feel the pain and change their institutional approach and culture. Focus the cuts at the Headquarters and Pentagon levels for the biggest bang for the buck)

It would freeze foreign aid spending at $5 billion a year and eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Energy and privatize the Transportation Security Administration.

Paul said some of the money saved could be used to pay for infrastructure projects.

“Our budget would actually eliminate the Department of Energy. I would take some of that money and put it into a bridges fund,” he said.

The plan would repeal the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

It would also permit construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and implement broad tax reform by establishing a 17 percent flat tax for individuals and corporations.

Note too the pension reform proposals and the use of block grants. Apparently Prime Minister Harper isn't the only one who sees the utility of these approaches. I am dubious on the projected surplus, especially since the so called "trust funds" for Social Security and Medicare are heading into negative balance starting in the projected time frame, but perhaps the Senators will re submit the proposals after November and redo the calculations based on a Jan 2013 start time.
 
Thucydides said:
This is interesting for several reasons. First off, the Senators involved recognize that any political program needs to be done in a short time frame (i.e. five years) otherwise it will be overtaken by events. Secondly, it is focused on spending cuts; and rightly so. The insane increases in spending (5 trillion dollars added to the debt in just three years) can only be addressed through steep spending cuts. Lastly, it is a lesson for us, especially Ontarians. Mike Harris needed to make cuts totalling 3.9% to stabilize the economy and restart economic growth and balance the budgets in the 1990's. Dalton McGuinty has created such a mess that the Drummond report calls for cuts of 17%. Since Mr McGuinty seems set to ignore the report, the next Premier may have to start contemplating cuts on the order of 25% to reign in out of control deficits and tackle a debt load approaching 50% of Ontario's GDP at that point.

Given the US situation is far graver (debt is approaching the 100% of GDP mark, and unfunded liabilities for entitlements, pension and the like are in the hundreds of trillions of dollars range), either bold action needs to be taken very soon to make a controlled drawdown, or the equilibrium will be upset (most likely by an outside agency like the EU economic crisis or war in the Middle East; don't forget the "unknown unknowns" as well) triggering all kinds of negative economic, social and political consequences.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215023-tea-party-senators-unveil-five-year-plan-to-balance-budget-reform-social-security-and-medicare

Note too the pension reform proposals and the use of block grants. Apparently Prime Minister Harper isn't the only one who sees the utility of these approaches. I am dubious on the projected surplus, especially since the so called "trust funds" for Social Security and Medicare are heading into negative balance starting in the projected time frame, but perhaps the Senators will re submit the proposals after November and redo the calculations based on a Jan 2013 start time.

I don't know. Sounds more lik socialism than what Obama is accused of doing. :stirpot:
 
cupper said:
I don't know. Sounds more lik socialism than what Obama is accused of doing. :stirpot:

You're a funny guy cupper, I'll kill you last  ;)
 
Deciphering the US economy is becoming an exercise in Kremliology. The Administration and Legacy Media are spining stats like crazy, but the ground truth is not matching up. In an election year, people will start questioning why they and their neighbours are not particiating in this "recovery summer" (or the last two ones before), which may do more to sink both the Administration and the Legacy media than anything else. People will react pretty badly once they wake up and realize they were had:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577275261466314018.html

Something about the U.S. economy isn’t adding up.

At 8.3%, the unemployment rate has fallen 0.7 percentage point from a year earlier and is down 1.7 percentage points from a peak of 10% in October 2009. Many other measures of the job market are improving. Companies have expanded payrolls by more than 200,000 a month for the past three months, according to Labor Department data. And the number of people filing claims for government unemployment benefits has fallen.

Yet the economy is barely growing. Many economists in the past few weeks have again reduced their estimates of growth. The economy by many estimates is on track to grow at an annual rate of less than 2% in the first three months of 2012. The economy expanded just 1.7% last year. And since the final months of 2009, when unemployment peaked, the economy has expanded at a pretty paltry 2.5% annual rate.

How can an economy that is growing so slowly produce such big declines in unemployment?

The true answer is an entir ecadre of unemployed people (discouraged and not looking for work anymore) are not being reported (U3 is at about 11%); and the involuntarily underemployed are also not reported (U6 being 14%). By misreporting the labour participation rate, the Administration can make the false claim that unemployment is 8.3%.
 
"This American Life" host caught attacking the most successful American company in history. I think the more interesting story will be to track down the motivation behind this. 1% envy? Building the class warfare "narrative"? Following the Administration's attack on big business "narrative"?

Watch for the Legacy media to be all over this one [/sarc]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/american-life-retracts-apple-episode-says-daisey-fabricated-175638428.html

This American Life retracts Apple episode, says Daisey fabricated parts
By Liz Goodwin | The Lookout – 18 hrs ago
 
Daisey (MikeDaisey.blogspot.com)The public radio show This American Life has retracted an entire storyline told by comedian and self-described Apple fanboy Mike Daisey that aired in early January after Daisey's translator said he made up significant details of the tale.

In a press release, the show says the episode was the most popular in its history and was downloaded 888,000 times. The episode also sparked a petition for Apple to improve its working conditions that was signed by a quarter of a million people.

Daisey said in the 39-minute episode that he became curious about the conditions of Chinese factories where Apple products are made after he discovered photos of factory workers that were left onto his iPhone by mistake. He travelled to the factories in Shenzhen, China and interviewed workers there, who told him they endured terrible working conditions. Daisey described meeting workers whose hands were shaking after they were poisoned with the neurotoxin hexane and meeting several children right at the gates of the factory who were as young as 12 years old.

The China correspondent for the radio show Marketplace, Rob Schmitz, wrote that he decided to track down Daisey's translator after he found it suspicious for Daisey to ferret out some of the worst labor abuses reporters have been hunting for years in a six-day trip to the site. Translator Cathy Lee told Schmitz that she never saw the underaged or poisoned workers, and that she also never saw armed factory guards, which Daisey describes.

So why didn't This American Life talk to Cathy Lee earlier, before they aired the episode? In a press release, the show says Daisey told them he lost her cell phone number. "At that point, we should've killed the story," show host Ira Glass said in the release. "But other things Daisey told us about Apple's operations in China checked out, and we saw no reason to doubt him. We didn't think that he was lying to us and to audiences about the details of his story. That was a mistake."

This American Life said it did "weeks of fact checking to corroborate Daisey's findings," when airing his original episode.

A new episode explaining how the show was duped will air Friday at 8 p.m. According to Schmitz, Daisey admits on the show that he never talked to poisoned workers.

Daisey, however, stands by his original storyline. "It uses a combination of fact, memoir, and dramatic license to tell its story, and I believe it does so with integrity," Daisey said on his blog. On the show, he struck a more contrite note. "I'm not going to say that I didn't take a few shortcuts in my passion to be heard," Daisey says, according to the press release. "My mistake, the mistake I truly regret, is that I had it on your show as journalism, and it's not journalism. It's theater."

This American Life isn't the only outlet that has had to retract Daisey's claims. The New York Times added an editor's note to an op-ed by Daisey published after Steve Jobs' death in October. The paper removed a paragraph from the original op-ed about a factory worker with a gnarled hand whom Daisey said had never seen an iPad before he let him see his.

Though Daisey has been caught making things up, other reporting has turned up problems in some of the factories that help make Apple products. The New York Times published a series on Apple's business practices, including the working conditions in its suppliers' Chinese factories, later in January. It said more than 100 factory employees were injured after using a poisonous chemical to clean screens, and two explosions in separate iPad-making factories caused multiple deaths and injuries. Workers were packed into dorms and pressured to work 24-hour-a-day shifts, and some underage workers have helped build Apple products. Apple wouldn't comment for the Times article.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misidentified Marketplace as an NPR radio program. It's actually produced and distributed by American Public Media, not NPR. This American Life is distributed by Public Radio International.
 
Thucydides said:
"This American Life" host caught attacking the most successful American company in history. I think the more interesting story will be to track down the motivation behind this. 1% envy? Building the class warfare "narrative"? Following the Administration's attack on big business "narrative"?

Watch for the Legacy media to be all over this one [/sarc]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/american-life-retracts-apple-episode-says-daisey-fabricated-175638428.html

Here is a link to the retraction show.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction

What get's lost in your article is the facts of what Apple and FoxConn are accused of, are in fact true. They have been independantly documented by other jounalists, Apples own audits, and other sources.

What was not true was Mike Daisey's own story. None of it ever happened. He based it all on things he's heard and read, not on his own personal experience.

It's just like every other hoax, it all starts with a grain of truth.
 
How refreshing it would be if everyone in media and publicity would stick to the grain of truth.  Exaggeration and lies in the service of belief, however, knows no ideological boundaries.  I'm sure there are many more fake-and-not-even-particularly-accurate stories yet to be told, irrespective of how much the damage they do outweighs the supposed good of the narrative they purport to uphold.
 
Obama is a joke, and the world knows it. With the exception of several million (out of several billion) left wing ideologists. 
 
Rifleman62 said:
Obama is a joke, and the world knows it. With the exception of several million (out of several billion) left wing ideologists.

Again:  :facepalm:
 
If you think their economy is bad....this kinda drives it home......

I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave
My brief, backbreaking, rage-inducing, low-paying, dildo-packing time inside the online-shipping machine.
—By Mac McClelland March/April 2012
Article Link

"Don't take anything that happens to you there personally," the woman at the local chamber of commerce says when I tell her that tomorrow I start working at Amalgamated Product Giant Shipping Worldwide Inc. She winks at me. I stare at her for a second.

"What?" I ask. "Why, is somebody going to be mean to me or something?"

She smiles. "Oh, yeah." This town somewhere west of the Mississippi is not big; everyone knows someone or is someone who's worked for Amalgamated. "But look at it from their perspective. They need you to work as fast as possible to push out as much as they can as fast as they can. So they're gonna give you goals, and then you know what? If you make those goals, they're gonna increase the goals. But they'll be yelling at you all the time. It's like the military. They have to break you down so they can turn you into what they want you to be. So they're going to tell you, 'You're not good enough, you're not good enough, you're not good enough,' to make you work harder. Don't say, 'This is the best I can do.' Say, 'I'll try,' even if you know you can't do it. Because if you say, 'This is the best I can do,' they'll let you go. They hire and fire constantly, every day. You'll see people dropping all around you. But don't take it personally and break down or start crying when they yell at you."

Several months prior, I'd reported on an Ohio warehouse where workers shipped products for online retailers under conditions that were surprisingly demoralizing and dehumanizing, even to someone who's spent a lot of time working in warehouses, which I have. And then my editors sat me down. "We want you to go work for Amalgamated Product Giant Shipping Worldwide Inc.," they said. I'd have to give my real name and job history when I applied, and I couldn't lie if asked for any specifics. (I wasn't.) But I'd smudge identifying details of people and the company itself. Anyway, to do otherwise might give people the impression that these conditions apply only to one warehouse or one company. Which they don't.

So I fretted about whether I'd have to abort the application process, like if someone asked me why I wanted the job. But no one did. And though I was kind of excited to trot out my warehouse experience, mainly all I needed to get hired was to confirm 20 or 30 times that I had not been to prison.

The application process took place at a staffing office in a run-down city, the kind where there are boarded-up businesses and broken windows downtown and billboards advertising things like "Foreclosure Fridays!" at a local law firm. Six or seven other people apply for jobs along with me. We answer questions at computers grouped in several stations. Have I ever been to prison? the system asks. No? Well, but have I ever been to prison for assault? Burglary? A felony? A misdemeanor? Raping someone? Murdering anybody? Am I sure? There's no point in lying, the computer warns me, because criminal-background checks are run on employees. Additionally, I have to confirm at the next computer station that I can read, by taking a multiple-choice test in which I'm given pictures of several album covers, including Michael Jackson's Thriller, and asked what the name of the Michael Jackson album is. At yet another set of computers I'm asked about my work history and character. How do I feel about dangerous activities? Would I say I'm not really into them? Or really into them?
More on link
 
Setting the stage as far back as 2008. (Frédéric Bastiat would understand):

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-broken-window-company/?print=1

Obama’s Broken Window Company — And His Larger, More Serious Damage

Posted By Tom Blumer On March 21, 2012 @ 12:02 am In "Green" tech,economy,Elections 2012,Money,Science & Technology,US News | 40 Comments

Readers who detect a disturbing echo from the past in the next several paragraphs aren’t imagining things.

On February 23, a California-based company which owns a window manufacturing plant in Chicago announced that it would close the facility because of poor business conditions, specifically citing [1] “ongoing economic challenges in construction and building products, collapse in demand for window products, difficulty in obtaining favorable lease terms, high leasing and utility costs and taxes, and a range of other factors.”

The very next day, the company, Serious Energy, Inc., went all Orwell [2]:

    Members of the press received incomplete and incorrect information that Serious Energy would be closing the facility immediately. The Chicago plant remains open at this time, and the parties are working together to find a new owner if possible and explore all other options. Both UE and Serious Energy apologize for any resulting confusion.

“UE” is United Electrical Workers Union Local 1110. Serious Energy made no mention of what drove the change which it said wasn’t a change but really was, namely that [3] shortly after its original announcement, “about 65 people, mostly employees, locked themselves inside the 268,000-square-foot facility.” In other words, the union and its workers re-occupied the plant.

That’s right, they “re-occupied” it. The plant’s original occupation, in many respects the precursor of the lawless Occupy movement which “somehow” appeared [4] in September of last year, came in December 2008. That’s when its then-owner, Republic Windows and Doors, having lost $10 million in the past two years, told employees that it would close the plant in three days. Workers [5] “occupied the building,” and said they wouldn’t leave “without assurances they’ll receive severance and vacation pay.”

Bank of America, which had cut off the company’s credit line because of its deteriorating financial condition, was unfortunately but understandably intimidated by the assemblage of politicians, activists, and leftist rabble which had gravitated to what they thought might be the start of a movement. As a result, six days later, it made “an additional loan” (the bank’s words) of $1.35 million to make the problem go away. For some reason, J.P. Morgan Chase also “pledged” $400,000.

The Associated Press’s headline called this result [6] “successful.” In reality, it may be the most costly $1.75 million shakedown ever conducted — if not for the workers, certainly for their nation.

Here’s a synopsis of the plant’s subsequent history:

    * In mid-December 2008, Republic filed for bankruptcy [7].
    * Serious Energy bought the plant [8] in February 2009.
    * In a March 2009 press release [9] followed by an April visit [10], Vice President Joe Biden declared that the administration’s stimulus plan would “increase demand for its products.”
    * The $5 billion “weatherization” element of the stimulus plan which was supposedly going to keep the plant and other window makers going was “initially delayed [11] for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry.” Since then, like Solyndra and so many of Team Obama’s other “green energy” efforts, it has been an epic fail [12], accurately characterized as [13] a “a complete cesspool of waste” by the conservative fiscal watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.
    * Despite the glowing promises, the union now says [9] the company “never hired back more than 75″ of the plant’s workers.
    * Serious hasn’t promised to keep the Chicago facility open, but has instead said it will spend 90 days from the date of its announcement trying to find a buyer — and presumably installing really strong locks on its doors and gates.

That’s not all. On February 22, the day before Serious’s original closing announcement, the Federal Trade Commission trumpeted consent agreements [14] it had obtained from five window manufacturers relating to their claims that consumers could cut their home energy bills by 40% to 50% with replacement windows alone (it’s really more like 7% to 15%, according to Consumer Reports [15]). One of the five? You guessed it [16]. It seems quite likely that these companies’ exaggerated claims were used as a basis for estimating how much energy savings the government’s weatherization program would achieve. “Seriously,” you can’t make this stuff up.

The harm done to the nation’s economy by the original Republic occupation was far more serious, and is still with us.

You see, one of those who took the workers’ side in 2008 was President-elect Barack Obama — a point which has gone virtually unmentioned in recent media coverage of the plant’s impending demise. On December 8, Obama pointedly lent his support [17] to the workers’ cause while failing to call out their lawless behavior:

    “The workers who are asking for the benefits and payments that they have earned, I think they’re absolutely right and understand that what’s happening to them is reflective of what’s happening across this economy,” Obama said.

Two days later, the banks caved.

Yours truly immediately recognized [18] the much larger problem with what Obama had done:

    It won’t take very much of this before businesses conclude that putting employees on the payroll must be avoided as long as possible, if it’s to be done at all. They will more frequently use temporary agency employees as long as they legally can. They won’t replace employees who retire or leave. They’ll have more work done in other countries. They won’t pursue business ideas that require U.S. employees. The trend toward professional employment organizations (PEOs, or “leased employees”) will accelerate.

    More such appearances by Obama as rabble-rousing community organizer in chief will go a long way towards ensuring that his “get worse before it gets better” prediction about the economy becomes tragically true.

In hindsight, I believe that Obama’s unprecedented reaction to what had been a private business dispute marred by union and worker lawlessness played a critical and immediate role in deepening and extending the recession, and that it continues to hold back the alleged recovery.

Keep in mind that he, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, had already spent the previous six months going back to the beginning of what I have been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy [19] since mid-2008 frightening investors, businesspeople, and entrepreneurs with what they said they would do if they achieved power. Those promises were radical: government control of health care, massive income and Social Security tax increases, and cap-and-trade, to name just a few. Employment, which had been declining, began to completely tank.

Obama’s first thirty days as president-elect, though overbearing in many ways, gave some people hope that his Democratic administration, like Bill Clinton’s, might not be as radical as first feared. Obama announced that he would defer originally planned tax increases. His early economic appointments, though insufferably Keynesian, were at least not off-the-chart socialists. What’s more, it was plausible to believe that the economy, thanks to low interest rates and a return of gas prices to under $1.70 per gallon from over $4 five months earlier, might be righting itself [20], or at least that the worst of the bleeding might almost be over.

Obama’s statement about the Republic situation completely dashed those hopes. What’s more, his community organizer in chief pronouncement came just in time for January, which is always the worst month of the year for layoffs and terminations. An astounding 3.25 million private-sector workers lost their jobs in January 2009, the largest raw number of job losses in the seventy-plus years monthly records have been kept — by over 700,000. January 2009 was also the worst month on record after seasonal adjustment. The mid-February 2009 passage of the stimulus plan and the Obama-condoned AIG executive intimidation campaign [21] only confirmed what everyone in business pretty much already knew, namely that this would become the most aggressively commerce-hostile administration since Franklin Delano Roosevelt — well on its way, especially after considering its mob-rule acolytes, to becoming the worst in U.S. history. Subsequent actions far too numerous to mention here have cast that evaluation in concrete. The worst post-downturn economic performance since the Great Depression is their tragic result.

My response to the administration’s tired propaganda claim [22] that the national economic situation was sooooo much worse than they thought when they first took office is as follows: Even if that’s true, it’s because your guy made it that way.
(Thumbnail on PJM homepage assembled from multiple Shutterstock.com [23] images.)

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-broken-window-company/

URLs in this post:

[1] specifically citing: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/Article_2012-02-24-Workers%20Takeover-Chicago/id-pdd6509e18cab412e9631960cab309e8d

[2] went all Orwell: http://www.seriousenergy.com/blog/press-release-serious-and-united-electrical-workers-union-come-to-agreement.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SeriousEnergy+%28Serious+Energy%29

[3] namely that: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Window-Plant-Agreement-Ends-Goose-Island-Sit-In-140290383.html

[4] which “somehow” appeared: http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/38786/how-a-canadian-culture-magazine-helped-spark-occupy-wall-street/

[5] Workers: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=itYpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7NAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7094,1258032&dq=republic+windows+workers+take+over+plant&hl=en

[6] called this result: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-12-10/news/17912737_1_republic-windows-doors-republic-violated-federal-law-union-leaders-and-bank

[7] filed for bankruptcy: http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/12/16/republic-windows-doors-files-for-bankruptcy/

[8] bought the plant: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6679892

[9] a March 2009 press release: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-republic-windows-redux-workers-occupy-goose-island-plant-20120223,0,4716311.story

[10] an April visit: http://www.seriousenergy.com/galleries/biden-visits.html

[11] initially delayed: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19bcgreen.html?pagewanted=all

[12] an epic fail: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-6236133.html

[13] characterized as: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/14/obamas-5-billion-weatherizing-program-wastes-stimulus-funds-auditors/

[14] trumpeted consent agreements: http://ftc.gov/opa/2012/02/windows.shtm

[15] Consumer Reports: http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2012/02/ftc-ends-exaggerated-energy-claims-by-window-makers.html

[16] You guessed it: http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/1123001/index.shtm

[17] lent his support: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-workers-staging-sit-absolutely-right

[18] immediately recognized: http://pjmedia.com/blog/commander-in-chief-or-community-organizer-in-chief/?singlepage=true

[19] the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy: http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/07/03/the-pelosi-obama-reid-recession-porr-may-have-begun/

[20] might be righting itself: http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/12/18/could-it-be-recovery-if-so-hurry-up-already/

[21] AIG executive intimidation campaign: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/25/the-rule-of-the-mob/

[22] tired propaganda claim: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/16/propaganda_film_says_economy_was_worse_than_we_knew_when_the_one_took_office

[23] Shutterstock.com: http://www.shutterstock.com
 
GAP said:
If you think their economy is bad....this kinda drives it home......

I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave

Just read the article......Holy crap Batman :o Good thing I have a pretty slack, obscenely well paid job now.......
 
Back
Top