In the July 23 review of my life and economic times, found below, I speculated that the American economy was heading for “a new equilibrium” whereby the big corporations and maybe 80% of the population would do just fine, and the other 20% of America would be shut out. That other 20% would be permanently stuck in poverty, unemployment, or under-employment at best. It would scrape to stay alive thru “off the books” activity and whatever government support might still be available (which will obviously decline over the coming decade due to huge federal deficits).
Here’s an article I read today by economist Robert Samuelson that seemed to affirm what I am saying. Samuelson notes that most major American corporations are doing just fine with regard to profits; but they just aren’t hiring. They are learning how to maintain a sufficient return on their invested capital without needing to expand their business base beyond what the big recession of 2008 currently allows. They have adjusted just swell to the recession.
The recent gyrations of the stock market also seem to affirm this; the market had been down quite a bit because of depressed employment reports. But, it perked up over the past week or two because of strong corporate earnings reports.
Which means that the big companies don’t really need additional employees or customers. Samuelson says that by June, profit levels may well be close to what they were at the beginning of 2008 (I myself would guess around 90%). By contrast, only about 11% of the jobs lost since early 2008 have been restored. If you are not employed right now, then you might not get “back on the bus”, as far as the American economy goes. Corporate America has learned how to get along just fine without you.
Oh, one more social irony, this one from the past. It regards the position of Native Americans during the Civil War. A rather complex issue. Some tribes stayed out of it, some supported the Union, some fought for the Confederacy. Some tribes even had their own little civil war over which side to back.
There must have been lots of mixed emotions there. The Union, despite its eventual, begrudging commitment to end slavery, still saw the Natives as an enemy people to be subdued. So you can understand why most Natives would not be in any hurry to risk their lives to save the Union. But surprisingly enough, many did; hoping, I suppose, for some respect once the battle was over. Unfortunately, they didn’t get it.
The Confederacy tried to make friends amidst the Natives on the idea that “an enemy of my enemy is my friend”. But really, how could the Natives trust white men who would continue to assert the inferiority to all with dark skins?
Yes, that is definitely a strange and interesting issue, a rarely discussed footnote to American history.
Jim, I am not disagreeing with you, but I tend to take a different approach to the
economic changes the country is going through. I tend to see the changes as akin to
those people went through when there was a shift to industrialization with people working
in factories as opposed to the way the economy of countries operated in times previous to
industrialization. It took a very long time for countries and people to adjust to the
change then.
‘ve often wondered why there was no similar problem with regard to the change in the
information age. The manner of work changed drastically, and I found myself wondering when
the impact would hit the ordinary working people as a whole. And I think we have that
problem hitting now. Just what will the “new” economy look like? How will people “work”
in the new information age when fewer people can do more work with the aid of technology?
As to your point about Native Americans vis-a-vis the the Civil War, etc.: I think that
you are not considering one fact. You mention Native Americans, but I will include Blacks,
and various other minorities in the mix I am talking about here. One thing that was never
considered (and is not even considered openly today) is that while a group of people may have
been “freed” or may have been allowed to participate in a particular aspect of how the
nation work when it was convenient, such groups were NEVER accepted socially. Yes, they
may have been allowed some of the “freedoms” of the country; but would these same people
be allowed to live anywhere they wanted to? Were they accepted in social circles
automatically because they were “freed”?
Interestingly, while some groups may be starting to be accepted socially, other groups are
being outlawed. The situation in Arizona is one example.
Perhaps I should put this another way: The economy may account for some of what we find
among minorities who are excluded from certain areas of society, but it certainly is not
the sole explanation. MCS
Comment by MCS — July 27, 2010 @ 1:33 pm