... at least since 1976, when records commenced.
Regional and state unemployment rates were nearly all higher in March. Forty-six states recorded over-the-month unemployment rate increases ... In March, the West posted the highest regional jobless rate, 9.8 percent ... Among the nine geographic divisions, the Pacific and East North Central reported the highest unemployment rates in March, 10.8 and 10.0 percent, respectively.
The California and North Carolina rates were the highest on record for those states. (All state series begin in 1976.)
California -- 11.2 percent
I remember that things got bad in 1982. I was gainfully employed through that downturn, but the news on the teevee was bleak for over a year.
I've heard politicians say as recently as a month ago: "Oh, this isn't as bad as the '82 recession." I think they will now have to reassess their earlier position.
We wouldn't be doing our job here if we didn't report how bad things were out in workplace land.
(If you're a student of history, you know that this sort of crap occurred on a regular basis in the 19th century and early twentieth centuries. Boom times were followed by a crash. Then a boom, then another crash. 1870s ... 1890s ... 1920s ... it was kind of monotonous.
Then for a sunny, fifty year-period we had regulations that prevented the banksters from leveraging everything to the hilt, but then the regs were meticulously unravelled ...
And here we are.)
Posts
12 comments:
Yep...because the central bank did such a good job with the last depression we had. And savers are certainly rewarded under their system of regulation and inflation.
Many Nobel winning economists think that the busts are actually a good thing...cleanses the system from malinvestment. But we could play tit for tat on that all day long...you'll throw Krugman in my face or something.
This fifty years of bliss you revere has actually built one of the most controlled, corrupt governments in the country's history. What we have is corporatism.
Banks, corporations control the politicians and government...which in turn control the people.
Can't say this is the system people had in mind while fighting King George way back when.
Can't say this is the system people had in mind while fighting King George way back when. Quite right.
What they had in mind was slavery, mercantilism and a National Bank.
A resounding no on the last one. The last thing colonial America wanted was another Bank of England. Today we have it in spades and it is quietly killing us all. But don't worry, it can be 'regulated.'
Exactly how does a government regulate banking that bets on both sides of wars? Precisely how does that work?
A resounding no on the last one. The last thing colonial America wanted was another Bank of England. Really? Apparently Alexander Hamilton, G. Washington and the U.S. Congress didn't get the memo:
First Bank of the United States
The First Bank of the United States was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was for 20 years. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States, which had previously been thirteen individual colonies with their own banks, currencies, and financial institutions and policies..
Officially proposed by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the first session of the First Congress in 1790, the concept for the Bank had both its support and origin in and among Northern merchants and more than a few New England state governments. It was, however, eyed with great suspicion by the representatives of the Southern States, whose chief industry, agriculture, did not require centrally concentrated banks, and whose feelings of states' rights and suspicion of Northern motives ran strong.
The bank's charter expired in 1811 under President James Madison. In 1816, however, Madison revived it in the form of the Second Bank of the United States ...
As I recall, PresidentAndy Jackson finally killed the bank, but that was well into the 19th century.
But no National bank? Not favored by the founders? Dude, read your history. You can't get much closer to the founding that Hamilton, Washington and the first Congress.
I should hope that there's more to our collective history than Wiki - dude.
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and many others knew intimately the devastation wreaked in the wake of fiat. Morris and Hamilton won the debate and began building the first incarnation of a central bank. With each successive incarnation it has gained more ground, to the point where the present one, the Federal Reserve, is perceived by the general public as being an actual part of the government, which it is most decidedly not - it is a private banking cartel. I'll leave whether or not it is constitutional to the academics, but what I believe is absolutely clear from watching the recent meltdown is that it is the fundamental reason for our steady economic decline since 1913. Actually, it has been a very quick downward spiral if you put America up against the rest of world history. Steady 'regulation' during our brief periods of middle class prosperity have collectively failed to offset the larger curve of Federal Reserve inflationary policy.
It's tragic that in times such as these when we need the government the most, it isn't the government that we are actually getting help from. We are turning to the exact same small group of aristocrats that put us in the drowning vessel to begin with.
Do we think Dick Cheney's Halliburton cares why we fight a war or how we pay their invoices to Congress? Do we actually believe that they have some kind of moral compass that is magically embedded in their profit margins somewhere?
If you want to truly REGULATE, I would suggest that we start with the very first thing that regulation of financial markets depends upon - a solvent currency. That's just Econ. 101.
Why this is such a difficult concept for us to grasp is evidence of the incredible state of denial that exists about the core problem we are facing.
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and many others knew intimately the devastation wreaked in the wake of fiat. Morris and Hamilton won the debate and began building the first incarnation of a central bank. Which of course explains why Washington signed the first National Bank into law.
I've got no problem with you ... whoever you are ... saying a National Bank and the Federal Reserve is a bad idea. Well and good.
My problem is you misrepresenting history.
Hamilton -- a founder -- "won the debate." The first U.S. Congress, also filled with founders, signed on to Hamilton's vision, as did George Washington.
Sure, there was a large faction that thought the bank was a real bad idea. Let's just not pretend that "the founders" were against a strong national bank.
Some were, some weren't.
I agree. I disagree that financial regulation since 1929 has had the effect we like to think it has. It's imperative that folks understand the macro mechanisms at play so that we might be more effective in coming up with solutions in difficult times. I sincerely appreciate the blog.
"Sure, there was a large faction that thought the bank was a real bad idea."
I agree. This is true that there are and have always been debates on both sides of these issues. Small government vs big government (John Adams wanted another monarchy). Central bank or no central bank.
With that said, it seems to me that this depression we are going through now will once and for all settle the debate.
The Federal Reserve was specifically formed to prevent depressions. They didn't do very well last time...
So if the Fed can keep us from falling further into either deflation or causing us to go into hyperinflation. And if they can return the dollar to a strong currency without having to turn everything over to the IMF forming some sort of stupid one world currency to save us all, then we can say that it works as intended.
However, so far things aren't looking too hot. The same people receiving bailouts have their friends running the treasury, congress, and the Fed. The Fed has given over 2 trillion to people and refuse to say who. Can't say that inspires a lot of confidence in the system.
So far there are 55 cosponsors for HR 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
Maybe we can find out what these guys have been up to.
I dare say the next 4 years is make or break for the way our monetary system and government is run. The people have nearly had enough.
To be transparent here, I called my confress persons last fall, urging them to vote "no" on Paulson's bailout.
They saw fit to go another direction.
I'm in favor now of a 1980s style S & L type restructuring, and a hell of a lot more transparency.
I think all these nifty trades of leveraged paper and credit default swaps need to go through the New York Stock exchange or another exchange, where they're subject to effing rules.
Sadly, we are ruled by financial oligarchs, so I'm not sure I'm going to get my heart's desire.
But hey. I'm still hopinhg for good outcomes! (I wish, I wish, I wish ...)
forget seeing transparency anytime soon. they are all playing from the same handbook recent events should point that out.
"without having to turn everything over to the IMF forming some sort of stupid one world currency to save us all"
Sorry my friend, looks like we are too late...it is already happening.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041902242.html?hpid=topnews
People better wake the 'F' up...and in a hurry. The US is losing any sovereignty it had left.
good point!
Post a Comment