Government-Free Market Combo

I heard a brief radio report this morning that the government was halting the “Cash For Clunkers”*** program already. There wasn’t much info in the report, and in fact, a short while later, a caller to the radio show noted how this was just another example of government’s inability to run anything well.

Later I heard on television news that the government wasn’t halting the program because it failed, but because it was so successful!!! The program was running out of money (one billion George Washingtons) after less than a week. An even later report said that the White House and congressional people had been in talks to make sure more money was available to keep the program operating “through this weekend.” Notice that last part. With leaders obviously pleased with what is happening, you’d think they would come up with enough money to keep the program funded far past this weekend, and they just may well do that, but we’ll have to see. If it’s working, don’t rock the boat! Go for it!

What we have is a boost to the American auto business by Uncle Sam, but then further aided by the auto industry itself, as dealers have offered to match, or even exceed, the government discount. One of the local television stations had a really good segment on the news a week or so ago about the program. At that time, “Cash For Clunkers” hadn’t yet gone into effect, but auto dealers were literally taking orders, and storing vehicles to be traded in by customers. The reporter for the news segment showed how, in some cases, a buyer could get, for example, a brand new $20,000 car for just $10,000. I believe it was last weekend that I read in the newspaper that one government agency had received tens of thousands of calls in reference to the discount program.

To me, if the government is going to spend taxpayer money, this is one of the ways to do it to help the economy and the AMERICAN auto industry. I said long ago that Uncle Sam should have just sent all of us a big check instead of bailing out bankers and wealthy executives who got us into this mess. Let US spend the money where we choose to spend it, or at least have designated programs such as this auto program, where the money HAS TO BE SPENT ON AMERICAN GOODS OR SERVICES. I also said that this would require a firm crack down on oil and gasoline prices, or the greedy bastards will charge $50 a gallon to get every damned penny given to us by the government. So…for those of you who thought Randy was a off his rocker, GO BUY A CAR!!! (A word history is below)

***For those unaware, Congress passed, and the President signed, a law giving rebates of $3500 or $4500 if you traded in your older, less fuel efficient model vehicle for a new, more fuel efficient vehicle. To keep this simple, I won’t get into all of the specifics, but if you get a new high fuel efficiency vehicle, you get the full $4500 amount off the price. Understand, the dealer gets the rebate from Uncle Sam, and you get the amount discounted from the price. The idea was to give a boost to the auto industry, and to help fuel efficiency simultaneously. You can check all of the details online at:

http://www.cars.gov/

WORD HISTORY:
Hose-This seems to go back to Indo European "keu/(s)keu," which had the notion of "covering."
The Old Germanic offshoot was "khuson/khusan," which meant "a covering for the leg." Old English had "hosa," also meaning "a covering for the leg." Close English relative Dutch had (I don't find it in modern Dutch, but maybe it's dialect now) "hoos," which one source says meant "stocking," (See further on) and another close relative, German, has "Hose," which means "trousers, pants," from the notion of "leg covering," and this is an every day word in German. French, a non-Germanic language, however with a substantial Germanic-based vocabulary, also HAD "hose" for "stocking," but this was prior to the modern era. Dutch also used the term for "a water hose," taking the original meaning of stocking, a long tubular covering for the leg, and applying it to a tubular object for dispersing water." This too seems to have died out in modern Dutch; however, English picked up this meaning from Dutch in the late 1400s, and it is still very much alive. I also found reference to the verb form, "to hose (down)," coming into use in English in the late 1800s.

The New Deal Era & Now, End

When Franklin Roosevelt took office, the American economy was in a shambles. Between 1929 and 1933, the economy suffered some staggering blows. Business investment plummeted by more than 95% from the 1929 level, international trade declined by about 50%, Gross National Product (GNP), used to measure the sum of all goods and services produced by the economy, dropped by nearly 30%, construction spending fell by 78%, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed an overall drop in prices by 18%. This huge price drop is called "deflation." Now, we all LOVE when the price of goods or services fall, but trust me, we don't want this to happen. When prices fall because of better producer efficiency or because they were way over priced, that's one thing, but when prices fall because businesses are trying desperately to bring in customers who are either hoarding funds or don't have many funds to hoard, this is a serious situation. A "mentality" sets in, with buyers waiting for prices to fall further before buying, which leads to prices falling further. If your employer is making less money, because of lower prices, guess who might not have a job soon?

After taking office, Roosevelt embarked on a course to try to stabilize, and then to reinvigorate, the economy. His proposals to Congress are known collectively as "The New Deal." Did his plans work? Well, the next election would seem to indicate that a great many Americans believed they did, or at least that many wanted to give FDR's policies more time, as Roosevelt swamped his Republican opponent, Alfred Landon, by a huge margin in both the electoral vote and in the popular vote.*** Roosevelt went on to win again in 1940, but while the popularity of the New Deal certainly continued with voters, war had broken out in Europe and in Asia, Japan was at war with China. There's no question that these events also influenced the outcome of the election. In 1944, Roosevelt won again, but by that time, America was in the midst of the war, now called "World War Two," and voters certainly weren't interested in changing administrations with the country at war. But elections aren't the only way to judge Roosevelt's two terms in office; we have statistics, and they can be little "buggers" for those desperately trying to throw history into reverse. Here, from "Historical Statistics US (1976) series D-86," are the unemployment rates, by year, during Roosevelt's first two terms.

Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, as presidents assumed office on that date in those days.
1933
24.9 (Further, and this is significant, a substantial part of the workforce had been reduced to part time from full time work.)

1934
21.7 (3.2% drop)

1935 (1.6% drop)
20.1

1936
16.9 (3.2% drop)

1937
14.3 (2.6% drop)

1938
19.0 (4.7% increase. Roosevelt cut back on New Deal programs to try to balance the budget, an idea he abandoned, as the country registered a big downturn, quickly dubbed "The Roosevelt Depression," by conservatives. Those trying to discredit the New Deal use the unemployment number from this year as their point of comparison with 1933, not the intervening years, to claim that the New Deal was a failure.)

1939
17.2 (1.8% drop)

1940
14.6 (2.6% drop)

1941
9.9 (4.7% drop. In fairness, America was producing goods, including war goods, to help the Allies, and in an effort to build up our own military, in case of war, which of course came in December. I only included this number to show how government spending brought down unemployment.)

As you can see, unemployment dropped significantly between 1933 and 1937; 10.6%. Further, many more people were on full time rather than part time. Now, did the New Deal end the Great Depression? No, but it helped. Would we have rather had those 10.6%, and perhaps more, still out of work? Just as today, the "purists" can't accept that their system collapsed. It DIDN'T and it DOESN'T always work flawlessly. The interesting thing is, I've often heard from some how the New Deal spending didn't help, but then these same people cite World War Two spending for ending the Great Depression. You can't have it both ways!!! Then Hitler, that SOB, can also be cited for combating the Great Depression. There were something like 6.5 million unemployed Germans in 1933 when Hitler took power (January 30th), and many more had only part time work. Germany's situation is analogous to America's, at that time. Hitler started lots of public works, building roads, bridges, and such in an effort to sop up unemployment. After a year or so, he began a dramatic military build up. German unemployment dropped precipitously up until the start of World War Two. Ronald Reagan became president when the country was in a downturn, which worsened considerably in his first two years in office. Reagan proceeded to run big government deficits and initiated a huge military build up. Okay, I'm NOT saying Reagan was Hitler. I'm only comparing the similar economic policies they used to fight economic downturns.

Now, will the Obama Administration's policies on spending work? We'll have to see, but the severe downturn has slowed. I didn't agree with how it was handled,^^^ but let's hope they get this right. Will it end the downturn? Probably not, just as the New Deal needed more "OOOMMMPPPPFFFF," this "stimulus" needs to get out the door faster, and "may" need a boost. (A word history follows the notes)

***Roosevelt received 60.8% of the popular vote and 523 electoral votes from 46 states to Landon's 36.5% of the popular vote and just 8 electoral votes from 2 states. For those unaware, in 1936, the Unites States had only 48 states.

^^^See: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-about-stimulus-bill.html

Word History:
Prince-This word came into English during the 1200s from Old French "prince." It came to Old French from Latin "princeps," itself formed form Latin "primus;"^ that is "first," and supposedly a form of "capere," which meant "to take."^^ Thus we have "to take first place (in leadership)." During the 1300s, English acquired the feminine form, also from French, which was "princesse" in French and gave us PRINCESS.

^ Latin "primus" goes back to Indo European "per," with the notion of "in front (of), before, forward, foremost, first;" thus also indicating, "chief, leader."

^^ Latin "capere" goes back to Indo European "kap(h)," meaning "grasp," thus, "take, seize, capture, take in mentally;" thus also "understand, comprehend."  

Sarah Palin

John McCain did Sarah Palin a disservice. By choosing Palin to be his running mate, McCain thrust her onto the national stage without ANYWHERE NEAR enough preparation. Political campaigns can be tough business, especially if the campaign happens to be for the highest offices in the land. There have been lots of accusations that the media has been unfair to Palin, and I think some of that is true, but to give the media a little backing here, they were taken by surprise by McCain's choice, just as I'd say everyone who follows politics was. They had to play catch up, and if you recall, at first the McCain people tried to keep Palin away from direct contact with the media. The McCain people knew she wasn't ready to be Vice President of The United States, something many of them have made abundantly clear since the election. What McCain was thinking, I have no idea, but this choice alone disqualified him to be President. It showed an extreme lack of judgment on his part. Over time, lots of people have run for national office without much experience, but at least they knew they were going to run and had some time to prepare. McCain's pick also lacked any kind of political kick, as Alaska is a pretty reliably Republican state on the presidential level, and it only has three electoral votes.

Now I know Palin's supporters like to point to the fact (and it was a fact!) that she drew large crowds wherever she went, something McCain himself did not always do. Many people were curious, many were true Republican faithful who, out of their fealty to the Republican Party, would have supported an empty suit for Vice President. (Calm down Republicans, I was just going to say that there are Democrats who follow the same line of ...ah...reasoning? Is that the right word?) To be quite honest, there could not have been many Americans, be they Republicans, Democrats or Independents, who knew much of what Sarah Palin believed or had done in her life. I was one. When I heard about her being picked, I said, "Who?" And I follow politics!!! I was far from alone on this, and if I remember right, the people chosen to comment about her selection had to do some quick "googling" to get info for the television cameras and microphones. Further, I know her supporters like to point to the fact that the Republican ticket had overtaken the Democratic ticket in many polls in the aftermath of the Palin selection. Again, this is a fact, they aren't making this stuff up, but the storytellers also like to say, "If the economy hadn't tanked right after this......" But the problem with that logic is, the economy DID tank! (In fact, it had been in the process of tanking well before late August, early September of 2008.) The "if" scenario is irrelevant! Further, once the media started to get at Palin, she showed that she was ill prepared for the candidacy she had accepted.

Sometimes we seem to forget that these are REAL people appearing on our television screens during news coverage. I heard someone say that Palin should have turned down McCain's offer, and that's easy for us to say, but she is a REAL person, with a REAL ego. In an ideal world, Sarah Palin would have thoughtfully considered things and told McCain, "Thanks, but no thanks!" In the real world of 2008, she accepted. Think back in your own life, have you never taken on something, only to realize later that it was too much for you at that given moment in time?

I don't quite get all of the things she talked about in her announcement the other day. She seems to like playing the victim, and some folks have given her reason to do that, as Letterman's joke was over the line, but even then she couldn't leave it alone, insisting that he meant her younger daughter, if meaning the older daughter wasn't bad enough. Then she said something the other day to the effect that people had said some nasty things about her young son, who has Downs Syndrome. I've never heard about this, but it wouldn't surprise me that in a country of over 300 million people, that there are some horses asses who'd say anything. If she is going to EVER be involved in national politics, especially, she's going to have to learn to let a lot of the nasty stuff roll off of her back, and keep her mouth shut about it (and I don't mean that like what she seems to mean below in the next paragraph). She only gives it more play by responding to all of this crap, and there's been this constant air of controversy surrounding her since the election. This isn't the media's fault. What, the media shouldn't report her statements about the petty things people say about her or her family? To me, she relishes that victim role, TOO MUCH!

Which leads me to another statement she made the other day, something to the effect that there are people who want her to "sit down and shut up." Here again, who are these people? Identify them! What was the context, if they made such a statement? Here lately, I think some Republicans "may" (I'm NOT saying they did!) have indicated that she needs to "chill out!" The Republican Party has been battered lately by scandals, made worse by their own desire to continue 16th Century Puritanism in the 21st Century!

WORD HISTORY:
Queen-This goes back to Indo European "gwen," which meant "woman" and, some sources also say "wife." The Old Germanic branch of Indo European continued with "kwenon/kwoeniz," also with the meaning of "woman, wife." In Old English it was "cwen," with a long "e" sound. It too meant "woman, wife," but later it took on the more specific meaning of "wife of a king." Unlike its Germanic cousins on the Continent, English came to use this word for a woman ruler, or the wife of a ruler. The other Germanic languages use a feminine form of "king" to indicate the English meaning, and German has "Königin," which is just that, the "in" ending signifying the feminine form in German. (There was also a variant, the now archaic "quean," which simply meant "woman," but which took on derogatory meanings, like "hussy/prostitute," later in English.)

Economy Still Losing Jobs

Before I continue with "The New Deal and Now," (this relates to that topic, however) the government released unemployment numbers on Thursday, July 2. The report showed the unemployment rate went to 9.5%, and that 467,000 Americans lost their jobs during June. The only good news, if you can call it that, is that this is better than the 700,000 jobs being lost earlier in the year. This is going to be a real tough time for many, many folks, and it isn't going to end for quite some time, I'm afraid. I heard one Stephen Moore, a conservative economist and frequent guest on CNBC (a business cable channel, owned by NBC) Thursday. Unfortunately, I just tuned in when he had already been talking, but I did hear him say that if the government (he's been critical of Bush and Obama) hadn't intervened in the economy, unemployment wouldn't have gone over 6%. This guy must think he's talking to an audience full of Rush Limbaughs. Do you really believe this nonsense folks? "Economy....heal Thyself!" He's entitled to his opinion, but so am I, and I say that without much of the intervention that taken place (distasteful as it has been), we would have unemployment closer to 26% than to 6%. No one can convince me that if all the big banks had gone down, and many smaller banks, and the three major American auto companies had gone down, and AIG, the insurance giant, had gone down, that we'd only have 6% unemployment. C'mon now, Mr. Moore!

There are some "green shoots," as they've been called; that is, some bits of good news, like some upticks in certain indicators and sectors of the economy, but things are fragile, at best. There are still problems looming over the economy, as many states are nearly bankrupt, to put it bluntly. The same can be said for many local governments, including school systems. This only seems to say that there will be more layoffs feeding the downturn. Further, home prices continue to plummet, and commercial real estate, like office buildings and shopping malls/shopping centers are still in deep trouble, which then goes back to lenders who financed these deals. Further still, so many people have been damaged, even destroyed financially, by what has gone on for the past several years. They have seen their savings diminished or wiped out, including for many, even their 401 K plans. A sad, sad situation, as many people, especially those in their 50s and 60s, will NEVER recover from what has happened to them. I just hope that those who are younger can recover. The situation is still VERY ugly. For regular readers, you may recall that I said last year, that whoever wins the election (for president), may well be destroyed by what is taking place. At this moment, I have no reason to retreat from that. (Ahh, keep in mind, I DID say, "may." I know how to use "weasel words.")

Word History:
Scatter/Shatter-The overall history of these words is not certain, but it seems that "scatter" is actually a variant of "shatter," which was spelled "schateren/shateren" in English many centuries ago. The hard "c" sound "seems" to have come from Norse influence during the 1100s, as it traces back to the northern part of England, where Norse influence was greatest. Of course, when you look at the concept of the two words, they are similar: if a window "shatters," the glass "scatters." One source says the words come from Old Germanic "skath," (with no meaning given), but myself, I lean more to them coming from Old Germanic "skaith," which itself was the Germanic offshoot of the Indo European root "skei," both having the meaning of "divide, split, part." German has "scheid(en)," which means "to divide, separate," and the Low German dialect of the north had (I don't know if it still has in modern times) "schateren." (Notice the close spelling to the old spelling in English above) The shorter form of the "scatter" is "scat," as in to chase off a cat or other animal; that is, to "separate" the animal from yourself.