Comments on: The Lost Decade

By: Norma

Norma — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:32:16 +0000

I’ve always worked for the state, or a non-profit that got grants from the state (federal, state, local), and I can assure you, that sector has had a huge growth. Some of the salaries aren’t fabulous, but the perks are, and now we’re trying to fatten our 403-b’s hoping all those private sector, real jobs won’t go away.

By: Haiti, State of Nature, and Birth Control | Conservative Heritage Times

Haiti, State of Nature, and Birth Control | Conservative Heritage Times — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:23:09 +0000

[...] the current debate about Haiti (here, here, and here), I would like to add a few [...]

By: Some articles for your consideration | Conservative Heritage Times

Some articles for your consideration | Conservative Heritage Times — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:29:45 +0000

[...] Politics of Ingratitude” and “The Lost Decade” are both good ones from John Medallie from Front Porch [...]

By: Gideon

Gideon — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:28:21 +0000

wow, good work on your article!

By: John Willson

John Willson — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:44:31 +0000

John,
Our corporations are either wholly owned subsidiaries of government or equal partners. NASCAR suits should also be worn by corporate executives that say, “This product brought to you by FDA, EPA, DOD, via US Congress, signed by our Imperial Leader.”

By: Albert

Albert — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:46:25 +0000

The rector of my church says that they all should have $ signs in front of their names.

Haha, I like that.

By: John Médaille

John Médaille — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:15:16 +0000

Barry, Of course our political institutions are wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporate America, and every attempt at campaign finance “reform” just makes it worse. So my suggestion is to replace all campaign finance laws with just one. The system can collect as much money as it likes, from whomever it likes. However, all elected officials will be required those NASCAR suits with the names of their corporate sponsors prominently displayed. And they should be required to end every speech with an acknowledgment of their three top sponsors: “This message brought to you by Exxon, Citibank, and Merck Pharmaceuticals.”

By: Barry Brown

Barry Brown — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:21:34 +0000

I am one of the people who were hurt by this insane free trade policy. For the last decade my income has been roughly half of what it was in the 1990′s. I am 60 years old and won’t be able to make up the loses in my 401(k), which is now an annuity which I will have to tap before I’m 70.5 years old–will it still be there? Who knows! If I had been like my Scottish and Swiss French ancestors I would have it in silver buried in the cellar, but that would not be safe either as commodities like silver can be very volatile, not to forget that they can also be stolen. Last fall both the Republican and Democratic congressional campaign committees telephoned asking for donations and I told them “Why should anyone in their right mind out here in fly-over country give you a dime, since fall ’08 it has been very plain that whether a congressman has a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ behind his/her name they are owned by the likes of Goldman-Sachs. What I want is a viable third party!” The rector of my church says that they all should have $ signs in front of their names.

By: Cecelia

Cecelia — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:51:01 +0000

I often harp on the increasing disparity in the distribution of wealth as a danger – but I was still shocked to read those statistics. Very sobering.

By: rufus

rufus — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:47:25 +0000

Good. I was thinking about mentioning these statistics here in the comments and forgot. Actually, part of what I’ve found fascinating about FPR is that I come to this knowing a handful of economists who have been talking for some time about the value of reorganizing around local economies because the larger economies might simply be given to collapse. “Deglobalization” has become a buzz word, and it might be a fad. But I’m starting to suspect that the localism the FPR talks about might just become economic necessity in this century.

By: Tom Piatak

Tom Piatak — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:21:49 +0000

Mr. Medaille is exactly right.

By: Bruce Smith

Bruce Smith — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:38:26 +0000

The oligarchy is increasingly realizing that the current free trade arrangements spells trouble and protectionism is not quite the dirty word it used to be. Here’s Martin Wolf from the Financial Times on the subject:-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/35c95d26-e463-11de-a0ea-00144feab49a.html

It will not be easy, however, to construct a protectionist policy without upsetting the owners of the substantial American investments in countries like China. I strongly believe that a partnering arrangement with tax incentives will replace current open-ended trade arrangements and protection for the United States economy will be gradually put in place without completely choking off imports from less developed countries. Balanced trading will suddenly become fashionable again for both economic and political reasons.