anon at 3AM says it all.

For the country and the economy, it’s our best and maybe only shot.

anon at 11:57 –
to answer your question, it’s their party.

But irresponsible for an economist to advocate the housing bill in its current form.

And throwing money at the i-banks? Laughable. Angling for a job at Citibank, more likely. Or too close to Rob’t Rubin. Is this what the party has come to?

Prosperity doesn’t come from consumption; at best, prosperity allows consumption.

As usual, Yves is right on. Treasury Secretary? Why not Fed Chairman?

Members of Congress have a hard time doing anything unless they can make a buck off it.

Most people are going about their own business as the Ponzi scheme reaches its ultimate conclusion but they will pay for it.

I said before that the US Treasury needs to issue their own new currency (with no interest) because in the end they are going to have to do it anyway and it will hurt just as much if they do it now or later on.

The conversion rates, accepted debt tender, backing, foreign obligations, etc. are all minor details but the Fed Reserve needs to go bye-bye. With a dependable currency everything else will work its way out(in time). If not, it’s going to be a nightmare.

Maybe not a conspiracy, but it is hard to ignore the concerted efforts of many in power to weaken labor as much as possible.

As a prime example, by no means isolated, witness the first act of Bush when it came the time to create Homeland Security. What was the very first thing he insisted upon rather heavily? Sweeping concessions from the Civil Service unions because said contracts would “thwart the fight against terrorism.”

Excuse me but the existence of unions did not prevent us to defeat without an overt war, a power (USSR) that had 7,000+ nuclear warheads pointed at us, didn’t it?

How to explain this insistence, then? I suggest that it is contempt: behind his attitude, the president was implying that unions just can’t be trusted when it come to be strong on national security, thus, they just couldn’t be real patriots.

It goes without saying the in the 60’s and 70’s, unions really damaged themselves by sheer arrogance and lust for power without regard to the consequences of their actions. Today, the situation is completely reversed. Even common sense proposal just won’t be listened too, and workers are left out in the cold to fend for themselves.

It is hard to build a solid and motivated middle class this way.

IMHO, Oil costs will begin to impact physical infrastructure, as in roads and roofs!

Old story here, which was off the radar screen, but now ore and more interesting IMHO:

The roofing industry is experiencing a double burden due to the oil dilemma. The high cost of gasoline is affecting materials transportation and operating expenses for roofing contractors. In Atlanta, asphalt roofing is a common preference among home owners for its economic-friendly price and durability. Since 85% percent of homes in the Atlanta area are covered with asphalt shingles, an increase in raw materials can be significant.

The problem KTM and many other roofers in the Atlanta area face is that since asphalt is created from crude oil, as the oil prices rise, so must the price of asphalt shingles. It is expected that despite the increased cost to produce, roofers will continue using asphalt shingles because of its common use with today’s homeowners.

“From January 2008 to June 2008 our cost for asphalt shingles has gone from $30 to $46 for the same roof coverage area,” explains Tim McLoughlin, President of KTM Roofing. “A portion of this cost will need to be passed on by KTM and all roofing companies. Unlike the price of oil, once the cost of shingles goes up, it historically stays at that level. Asphalt shingle prices do not fluctuate like oil prices do.”

I do find it hard to buy into Palley’s arguments. Generally, I like him but I think the the defeat of labor argument contains just too much conspiracy theory. Regardless of whether or not it happened as he likes to depict, the net result is that globalization would have and has produced the same result. The time table might have been different but the outcome wouldn’t have varied.

Nevertheless, this is the best article I’ve seen on Summers’ article this evening.