A Sluggish Improvement

I would like to touch briefly touch on a subject, if I may. This is a highly complex issue that one could write numerous books on, and many have. The economy. I however, intend to give some brief comments based loosely on fact but primarily on what most individuals in this country seem to be basing their opinion, perception.

Reports from the Labor Department the beginning of April showed that employers across the nation add 230,000 jobs and caused the unemployment rate to drop from 8.9 to 8.8 percent, the lowest rate in two years. In terms of percentage, that seems like a insignificant drop, and that may be the case. The vast majority of economists agree that after a downturn in the economy, unemployment will be one of the last portions of the measured economy to rebound. We will likely be seeing a high unemployment rate for the next few years, but the economy is improving. The market is up, consumer spending has rebounded, and firms are hiring despite the show rate. However, in regards to American perception, this matters little. A CNN poll conducted recently showed that 58% of Americans who partook in the poll do not see the economy improving.

What is the reason that such a large number of Americans have no faith that the economy in improving despite all the “experts” telling them otherwise? The reasons are numerous, but let just say even people with full-time jobs has been negatively effected by the recession. People see all these negative effects and have a hard time believing there is any improvement. This view is egocentric. Now I'm not trying to come down on the millions who have lost their jobs, had hours or pay cut. However, it shows that people don't see the economy as the collective trade between millions of people and dozens of nations. They, understandably, see it as their bank account, their unmanageable credit, or their foreclosed home. It will be some time before perception on this subject will see wide improvement.

So why families are still suffering, many are still looking for who to blame and who they feel should fix the problem. Seemingly, a considerable amount of citizens in this nation look toward the government for both parts of the question. And why not? The government is a massive face of this nation and has been charged with protecting and serving many aspects of our lives. However, the government only shares a portion of the blame for this great recession.

Again, perception. It is perception of this nation that seems them as the problem and demand that they are responsible for the fix. We still live in a free market society, this crash was caused by a very complex housing market. I will not going into specifics because again, books could be written on the topic. But ultimately there was a wide issue of acceptance when it came to shady business practices and putting people in homes they simply could not afford. And it can not just be blame at the greedy, fat-cat Wall Street level. It happen from Bank of America executives packaging up horribly bad investments with virtually not value and selling them for absurd prices, to the smallest broker shop raising a borrower's income 20% on the application.

Did this industry do this because everyone who sold mortgages around 2006 was a terrible, greedy person? No, I believe that most people do what they perceive to be right, but I equate the actions of the industry to the collective internet community. Have you ever downloaded a movie or song without paying a dime? If you said no, you're lying, so ultimately most of us are guilty of a pretty serious crime. This is exactly the mindset that ran rampant through the housing market. It became “well everyone else is doing it and it is helping their business, so it must be an accepted practice” or “if I don't fudge this borrower's income, the bank down the street will”.

That's exactly the problem with placing blame in this situation, there is way to much to be spread around, and no one wants to blame a free market that we cherish. So, in turn, it became easy to blame the government, they're usually the bad guy anyway right? Now, some have pointed to the fact that the government came up with the “stated income” loan that caused much of this problem. That would be similar to suing Volkswagen after you took your Jetta offroading. The product was designed for consumers such as newly self-employed borrowers who had massive earning potential but little to no income documentation, not for a construction worker with years of consistent W2s. State income products were intended to about 2% of the population and used on about 40%.

In this I am not defending Obama's or attacking Bush's economic policies. Because Bush is largely not to blame for the downturn and Obama is not to be praised for the recovery, at least not on the whole. I believe in a free market, but like everything else, it is not perfect. It makes mistake and when those mistakes people of that free market should not resort to scapegoating.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The Faux Revolution

As more and more republicans begin to form exploratory committees to research how they might possibly fair the Republican Presidential Primary, it remains increasingly clear how much the GOP refuses to change.  The Economist penned an excellent article in 2008 that begged for the real John McCain to reemerge, rather than the candidate who chose the cantankerous, self-serving then governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.  Beyond McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, The Economist, more importantly, criticized the GOP for losing it’s way under George W. Bush and, what’s more, neoconservatives.  Senator McCain had become popular with conservatives and centrists alike as he often decried and resisted his fellow legislators, on both sides, as bills were introduced that promised a largess to special interests, increased government debt, and reduced American hegemony, as well as many other areas of contention.  “Bring back the real John McCain,” wrote The Economist; The Moderate Dispatch agrees.  But, since that seems unlikely, the GOP needs to bring forth, not only, candidates who will separate themselves from neoconservatives, but, what’s more, candidates who can make The Party of Lincoln seem more believable. 

I live and work in an extremely conservative town.  Many of the people I have talked to think it is a mere formality that a republican will be elected president in 2012.  What many don’t understand, however, is that the 2008 election saw a splintering of the GOP.  Many registered republicans rescinded their party affiliation and became independents.  Furthermore, many voters, who considered themselves to be conservatives, voted for Obama over McCain.  While the GOP can count on the majority of rural towns across to deliver them votes, America continues to become more urban, and urban voters are continually becoming disenfranchised with a GOP that embraces more and more radical positions.  While this may be construed as a negative remark against the current conservative cause celebre, the Tea Party, it is not.   While partisans and pundits may have hijacked them, many of the original Tea Party movements in the past few years were not overtly partisan or, moreover, motivated be xenophobia.  Unfortunately, GOP partisans and wing nut pundits—like long-time neocons Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, and too-many ill-informed, greed-driven pundits—have overtly hijacked the Tea Party movement.  The American Conservative published a wonder article in April 2011 that questioned whether or not Rand Paul could bring the GOP establishment and the Tea Party together.  With the hiring of former Bush officials, Tim Pawlenty’s campaign seems to show that the GOP has not distanced themselves from Bush and the neocons. 

Perhaps it is fair; While Obama ran on a campaign that promised change and hope—as nearly most politicians do, a lot of conservative pundits and writers noted that Obama ran on the platform that he simply was not Bush.  While that charge was fair, the fact that McCain never thoroughly distanced himself from the man who was not only extremely as popular, but, what’s more, had ran an extremely filthy campaign against McCain in 2000, was very disconcerting.  McCain may still have lost in 2008, but not distancing himself from George W. Bush did not serve McCain well.  That being said, however, simply being against Obama will not win over those same independent votes that have bolted from the GOP. 

While a lot of the xenophobic base may be extremely loyal and, what’s more, loud, the GOP has a challenge in winning back the urban voter. 

(Subscribe.)