Will the economy ever come back? (tier, company, wage, recession)

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

Of course it will. Economic cycles are as old as mankind.

Sure they are but when in history can you point to the planet being in a consumption war and with so many people in it to boot?

This isn't like the economic problems of the past where there was still some capacity left on the planet to keep consuming. We're quickly reaching 100% of Earth's capacity and something has to give and you can pretty much bet your last buck that it will be the country that's using 25% of the Earth's oil resources and 30% of the Earth's non-oil resources.

Guess who that is.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by pvande55

Economic growth, which is imperative to bring back the much needed jobs and more to accommodate the growing workforce, depends less and less on energy. The energy-intensive industries have left the U.S., in fact the world. Less than 10% of the workforce is in manufacturing, the heaviest energy user.

And you don't think technology uses energy? The simple fact is unless you come up with more energy your economy is stagnant at best.

Just some random stories from 2011:

The biggest obstacle to that by far is power. A modern supercomputer usually consumes between 4 and 6 megawatts—enough electricity to supply something like 5000 homes. Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's National Center for Supercomputing Applications, IBM, and the Great Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation are now constructing a supercomputer called Blue Waters. In operation, this machine is going to consume 15 MW—more actually, if you figure in what's needed for the cooling system. And all that's for 10 petaflops—two orders of magnitude less than DARPA's exaflops goal.

If you tried to achieve an exaflops-class supercomputer by simply scaling Blue Waters up 100 times, it would take 1.5 gigawatts of power to run it, more than 0.1 percent of the total U.S. power grid. You'd need a good-size nuclear power plant next door. That would be absurd, of course, which is why DARPA asked our study group to figure out how to limit the appetite of such a computer to a measly 20 MW and its size to 500 conventional server racks.

Next-Generation Supercomputers - IEEE Spectrum

Google also released an estimate that an average search uses 0.3 watt-hours of electricity, a figure that may be difficult to understand intuitively. But when multiplied by Google’s estimate of more than a billion searches a day, the figure yields a somewhat surprising result: about 12.5 million watts of Google’s 260-million-watt total can be accounted for by searches, the company’s bread-and-butter service.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/te...ectricity.html

Just some things to think about as much of the rest of the world moves forward and gains middle class status. With that status comes energy consumption and to be able to consume that energy they need resources to build the products that consume that energy.

[kiwimac]

In NZ they are talking about a generation, 25 years, before things stabilise. I suspect they are being optimistic.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

History is replete with turning points and the housing crash was one of them.

In fact, if you want other examples of crashes in American history, take a look at the "Panics" of the 1800s. Some estimate that the "Panic of 1873" was the second worse economic crisis in this nation, and much of it was fuelled by speculation on land and overexpansion of railroads and a collapse in corn and wheat prices.

In fact, prior to 1929, the Panic of 1873 was called the Great Depression, and afterwards, was called the Long Depression.

I would rank our current depression to be no worse than that Panic.

That remains to be seen. There were actually two Great Depressions in the 19th Century, one in the decade just before the Civil War (and that was exacerbated by a 9 year drought that destroyed food crops in the South) and then the one that you mentioned.

Sure, technically, the US is not in a recession, because your GDP is still bench-marking, but the only thing keeping you out of recession is government spending. That's why I use the term "recessionary" to describe your economy through the end of this decade.

Government spending serves to hide the problems, barring identification of the real issues and masking them, so that they cannot be addressed, which is problematic in itself (since those problems continually compound themselves). The government (and many others) falsely believe they can spend it's way out of this cycle, due in part to a data misinterpretation of how government spending functioned in previous recessions and depressions.

The problem is this cycle is long-term, so there's no possible way to out-spend it, and attempting to do so will only create a massive inflationary cycle starting in about 11-12 years.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Further, this country's population is still growing, which fuels demand for services, and unless you haven't noticed, wages haven't kept pace or so it seems because we keep buying crap we don't need.

But "services" are of little value, and in fact are a luxury, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except that services do nothing but consume. If I make an Hoosier cabinet and trade it to you for 6 pairs of leather shoes, and some other leather goods like belts, suspenders, hand-bags and wallets, then you and I have accomplished something meaningful.

But if I give you money and you do a 20 minuted stand-up routine, or prod me with some medical device, then what have we accomplished?

Nothing, really.

It doesn't matter if you are an household, a business, a charity, or a government, you must limit your spending on services, or put in place some mechanism the creates limitations, because when it gets out of control, it really drains the money.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Also, our divorce rate isn't helping (single parentage is a SIGNIFICANT cause of home poverty).

That is a matter of government getting its hands into social-engineering.

If people want to divorce, fine, but government needs to enact appropriate controls. In the case of the so-called "no-fault divorce" the standard should be nothing at all.

If people want to walk away from a marriage, then they should do exactly that, with no financial incentive, no reward and no financial gain. They just leave and get no alimony, no child support and no division of property (other than what they owned out-right before entering the marriage).

In a divorce "for cause" where there is spouse abuse, child abuse, infidelity, alcohol, gambling or substance abuse, crimes of moral turpitude or abandonment, then the "accused" should forfeit everything.

Enact laws like that, and I guarantee you'll see a major attitude adjustment in society regarding marriage.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

But we won't suffer indefinitely. To assume such means you assume that technological progress is ceasing and the population is stopping and such. Which is not correct at all.

Don't be so sure.

Not all technological progress is beneficial from a stand-point of employment.

If you want to examine something, look at the US in the first 50 years of the 20th Century.

Most technology resulted in massive job losses that ultimately became a factor in the Great Depression. There was no where for the excess labor created by technology to go. In the end, that excess labor ended up in the US military fighting WW II, or producing war materiel.

When WW II ended, you went right back into a recession that would have gone right back into the Great Depression, had it not been for three key factors:

1] Europe (and Japan) -- the manufacturing base of the world was in shambles with the manufacturing, resources processing and agricultural base destroyed, the infrastructure destroyed or severely damaged, and millions of workers killed or injured, plus all governments heavily indebted.

That created an outlet for the excess US labor -- producing goods for war-torn Europe. If Europe had been left relatively unscathed, then there would have been no Marshall Plan and no outlet for the excess US labor -- you go right back into the Depression.

2] The Bretton Woods Agreement. That resulted in the US Dollar becoming the de facto international reserve currency, and the de facto international currency of trade.

That created an additional outlet for the excess US labor -- it was easier to buy from the US since all world trade took place in US Dollars.

3] No competition from developing-States.

The total lack of competition globally acted as bar preventing the creation of any more excess labor.

Your current problems stem from several key factors:

1] You were sufficiently ahead technologically and economically to absorb the waves of competition coming out of Asia. -- first it was the Taiwanese invasion of the 1960s, followed by the Japanese invasion of the 1970s, followed by the Pacific Rim invasion (mostly the Philippines and Thailand) in the 1980s, followed by the Korean invasion of the 1990s, and then now you have the Chinese invasion this century (even though China was granted most-favored nation status in 1980 by the Carter Administration).

However, you are presently unable to cope with the large number of simultaneously developing-States. You cannot compete on a global scale because the wages of American workers are up to 250x greater than the wages of foreign global workers. It is impossible to pay foreign global workers on a par with American workers, since that would create extreme income inequality between foreign global workers and foreign domestic workers --- and we all know that income inequality is evil because Liberals said so. It would also create Wage Inflation resulting in political, economic and social strife, destabilizing a country internally.

The only thing you can do is wait....for a very long time....while the natural flow, the natural order of things develops in accordance with the Laws of Economics until the wages of foreign global workers are on a par with US global workers.

Generally, wages in developing-States double about every 10 years, so sometime around the year 2040, the US should start to become globally competitive, and by the period 2050-2060, the US will be globally competitive -- for all the good it will do.

2] No new technology. The transistor created jobs. That was around 1948 or so, but that technology was held closely by the military until it was released for civilian use in the mid-1960s. Then you had the microchip, oh, what, the 1970s or so, which also created jobs. What have you done since then? Nothing. The only thing you have done is repackage microchips in various forms.

Sorry, that is not creating new technology. Scalloped potatoes, potatoes au gratin, skillet fried potatoes, French fried potatoes, oven browned potatoes, hash-browned potatoes, mash, baked potatoes, twice-baked potatoes, potato chips -- well, they're all still potatoes.

The processes, machinery and equipment that's been introduced has resulted in a net loss of jobs. We've seen this before. Ford introduces the assembly line production method in 1908, and everyone thinks he's crazy. By the early 1920's everyone is using assembly lines, and that increases production at the expense of employees, who are now in great surplus in the US, and that (plus post-WW I Real Inflation) led to the recession and housing bust of 1925, and marks the actual beginning of the Great Depression, with severe recessions in 1928, and again in 1930, and again in 1933 and 1937.

So, here we are with surplus labor created by an inability to compete globally due to the high wage differential and the repackaging of microchips in various forms as machinery and equipment reducing the need for labor.

3] Government spending.

Here's a great economic paper...

Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence

http://pirate.shu.edu/~rotthoku/Prag...d%20Growth.pdf

...which shows that big government impedes GDP growth.

For 10% increase your GDP is reduced 0.5%-1.0%

Now look here...

2001-2010 1.68%
1991-2010 2.55%
1981-2010 2.79%
1971-2010 2.89%
1961-2010 3.16%

1961-1970 4.22%
1971-1980 3.21%
1981-1990 3.27%
1991-2000 3.41%
2001-2010. 1.68%

Average GDP 2.89%

Notice how your GDP starts declining as your government does two things -- increases in size, and starts spending more money.

Understand that's just one of many reasons why GDP is declining.

They also present this as evidence....

Given that a standard deviation in this sample is nine percentage points, we could simply say countries where tax revenue is ten percentage points higher on average experience an average growth rate that is one percentage point lower.

You have a lot of problems. Social Security is insolvent; the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund is insolvent; your SMI Trust Funds are fiscally sound in the short-term, but the Medicare thinks your economy is going to grow an average of 5% between now and 2021...

Originally Posted by 2012 Annual Report Of The Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds...Page 7

For Part D, the estimated average annual increase in expenditures is 8.8 percent through 2021. The projected average annual rate of growth for the U.S. economy is 5.0 percent during this period

[Emphasis Mine]



.....Social Security thinks it will average 4.1% over the same period (but 6.4% over the infinite horizon through 2086); State and city pension plans are unfunded; cities are bankrupt or on the verge; you have a massive forced redirection of Capital thanks to Obamacare and that's just for starters.

I won't even get into the nickel and dime stuff.

Anyway, population size has nothing to do with GDP, and building a different kind of X-Box or Sega game system isn't going to help either.

Economically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

This time it's global and China isn't the only game in town. You have SE Asia, Central Eurasia, MENA, India, S. America, Southern Africa, etc.

It's virtually an unlimited supply of cheap labor for a very long time.

I have to spread the love around, so I couldn't rep you, but you hit on numerous pertinent issue that will plague the US for a while.

Sub-Saharan Africa really isn't part of the mix yet, uh, but that is not good news. If BRIC is smart, they'll work on stabilizing their investment and trading partners. The political and social situation in sub-Saharan Africa is still not where it needs to be for rapid expansion and the lack of infrastructure is hampering the shift from resource extraction to resource processing. That would be key in allowing them to move into the next phase, which would be durable goods and heavy equipment and other consumer industrial goods.

There isn't one stinking navigable river anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. I wouldn't be surprised to see China or Indian start building a trans-African canal or waterway system. I'm sure they'll be onto a trans-African railroad, highway and pipeline system. But first the political situation has to solidify a bit.

You look at an area like where the Dinka tribe lives in Sudan, that's the size of Texas and there are no roads, no electricity no nothing out there. A lot of work to be done in terms of infrastructure building.

I think I said 17-25 years, but it'll be closer to 25 years, which just makes it that much sadder, because in 2040 just when the US is able to compete again, here comes sub-Saharan Africa.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

For the next few decades you will see large increases of pressure on resources which will cause increases in the COL and the loss of disposable income for countries that were formerly on top i.e. the West

Yes, things will be really tight for a while. It won't take much in the way of weather, insect infestation, or bad harvests to jack up Cost Inflation on food stuffs, and then production problems and other events can hamper metal ores (like iron) and oil and natural gas.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Jobs might ebb and flow in some manner but it will never come back in the manner that I think you're referring to. The pressures on resources are unrelenting and will be for a very long time with the only exception being a major catastrophe like an X-class solar flare taking out large sections of the industrialized world, a world war or some combination of both.

That's true. Concrete data on developing-States is hard to come by sometimes, but what I see is a wholesale shift in Capital from the US and to a lesser extent Europe into the developing-States.

If you want to see that on a smaller scale, then look at the regional transfers of Capital in the US during the recession in the 1970s early 1980s. Textiles left New England and moved to the Southeast, manufacturing left the Midwest and moved to the South and Southwest, and then you have technology shifting to the entire West Coast, with Apple and then Silicon Valley and so on.

Textiles never moved back to New England and manufacturing never moved back to the Midwest. In fact, they've all moved further out, with textiles now in Mexico and other countries, manufacturing moving out and computer/microchip technology all shifted to SE Asia.

I'm sure computer/microchip manufacturing will continue to move from SE Asia to SW Asia and then into North Africa and then sub-Saharan Africa.

I don't really see much hope for the US anywhere in the short-time (or long-term).

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Sure they are but when in history can you point to the planet being in a consumption war and with so many people in it to boot?

Never. Never in world history. I think people might tend to confuse conflicts for access to resources as consumption conflicts. That isn't even the same thing, even less so since those access conflicts were primarily for the benefit of the governments -- monarchies -- and not the people. There wasn't really anything close to a consumer class in the 1500s.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

This isn't like the economic problems of the past where there was still some capacity left on the planet to keep consuming. We're quickly reaching 100% of Earth's capacity and something has to give and you can pretty much bet your last buck that it will be the country that's using 25% of the Earth's oil resources and 30% of the Earth's non-oil resources.

Guess who that is.

That's already happening. Ford is building a plant in India. That will require resources, and those resources will be diverted from the US, and then also create an increased demand, so everyone gets slapped twice. And that's pretty much the story for all other resources.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

And you don't think technology uses energy? The simple fact is unless you come up with more energy your economy is stagnant at best.

Just some things to think about as much of the rest of the world moves forward and gains middle class status. With that status comes energy consumption and to be able to consume that energy they need resources to build the products that consume that energy.

And then top that off, the electrical grid in the US is antiquated, and it'll cost about $3.25 TRILLION to upgrade the last I saw.

Every main station, every sub-station, and every switching station at the very least has to have all pre-1990 components removed and upgraded; all high-power high-tension transfer lines re-wired, all transformers replaced/upgraded and all the lines re-run up the businesses and residences (but you don't have to re-wire they houses or businesses).

Adding more power to a system that can barely handle the load now is not exactly a smart thing to do.

You know I've been wondering about this whole "solar energy" thing.

I just can't see it happening.

Seriously. Who really believes that government, vis-a-vis public utility companies who gain revenues from the sale of electricity and for-profit energy companies who gain profits from the sale of electricity are going to allow people to put solar cells on their roofs and get free electricity?

Something ain't right.

I would expect corporate interests to create some law that requires the solar cells to be leased, so that they derive some profits, and then government taxing users of solar cells in some way to get revenues to pay off their pension plans they owe.

Other than that, it would be an economically sound thing to do. Provided the cells were cheap enough, you'd increase disposable income for households, and then on a larger scale, you'd free up all the Capital that is used to build, repair and maintain residential power lines, as well as the electricity itself to be used elsewhere in the economy.

That would certainly lessen the amount of money needed to upgrade the electrical grid nationally.

Anyway, energy is one of the problems that hampers sub-Saharan Africa at present. I know the Zambesi has a dam that provides power to 4 or 5 countries in that region, and I thought they were going to build a second dam. They have very limited hydro there. I have no idea what the potential for geothermal is. Outside of that, they're forced for the time being on using either oil or natural gas fired electrical generators, which serves to increase demand for those resources.

So, the things I did not know. I will strive in my efforts to google less and do my part not to use so much energy.

Electrically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by kiwimac

In NZ they are talking about a generation, 25 years, before things stabilise. I suspect they are being optimistic.

I am unfamiliar with your country's specific situation, but they could very well be right. Britain does alright for an island, but then they have close proximity to Europe. You're still quite a ways from the Asian mainland. I have no idea how that might impact your trade or what might be done to ameliorate current problems. If I can put in my 2 cents, export more lamb to the US. You can butcher it there and export it frozen if you want, because I don't care -- it still tastes good.

Optimistically...

Mircea

[eskercurve]

Mircea, there's only really one point that I have to conjecture against:

2] No new technology. The transistor created jobs. That was around 1948 or so, but that technology was held closely by the military until it was released for civilian use in the mid-1960s. Then you had the microchip, oh, what, the 1970s or so, which also created jobs. What have you done since then? Nothing. The only thing you have done is repackage microchips in various forms.

Sorry, that is not creating new technology. Scalloped potatoes, potatoes au gratin, skillet fried potatoes, French fried potatoes, oven browned potatoes, hash-browned potatoes, mash, baked potatoes, twice-baked potatoes, potato chips -- well, they're all still potatoes.

The processes, machinery and equipment that's been introduced has resulted in a net loss of jobs. We've seen this before. Ford introduces the assembly line production method in 1908, and everyone thinks he's crazy. By the early 1920's everyone is using assembly lines, and that increases production at the expense of employees, who are now in great surplus in the US, and that (plus post-WW I Real Inflation) led to the recession and housing bust of 1925, and marks the actual beginning of the Great Depression, with severe recessions in 1928, and again in 1930, and again in 1933 and 1937.

So, here we are with surplus labor created by an inability to compete globally due to the high wage differential and the repackaging of microchips in various forms as machinery and equipment reducing the need for labor.

I think you have to agree that there's a lot of open jobs out there for skilled labor. People who can maintain the robots, machines, and computers, as well as engineering jobs, are in short supply. The people who don't have the education to keep up with it, I agree, are the ones who lose.

And sadly it's an educational problem at the root of it. Not a technological one.

The transistor led to a phenomenal revolution in industry and was extended by the Internet. Machines have the ability to do a lot of the work humans can and will continue to displace them. The only recourse is to learn more.

And what do (mostly republican) politicians do? Say that anyone who needs a college education is a "snob"

Sorry, pols, but we desperately need to fix the educational system.

RE: your other points, I think the world is becoming multipolar, not just a shift over to Asia. Economic output isn't a zero-sum game. One need only look to the 1910s and before then to see a multipolar economic world, and one could argue even before then into the Cold War (though I hesitate to extend it to the whole Cold War, the USSR was only really competitive until the late 60s).

In the end, I think with the right education most people could find new jobs. And we're already seeing my generation (the 30's and younger) retrain for labor jobs that require skills, and a LOT of corporations have realized they can't always bet on foreign workers because when the s hits the fan, they bring jobs back, and without training, they can't find workers. I know Boeing just partnered with the state to spend $20 million on a new training center. I highly encourage everyone I meet who are about ready to enter college to consider skilled trade jobs and not just go to college, waste mom and dad's money, and get a lousy BA in management or marketing or other fluff major like that. There will always be demand for more than managerial positions in the US, and no amount of outsourcing can replace experience. I don't care how much in wages we are more expensive ... companies realize that intellectual property issues overseas are numerous and losing IP is far more expensive than having more expensive workers.

End of the day we need better educated workers, it's not being a "snob" as Santorum said to want a better life. And technology doesn't always mean a long-term net loss of jobs, if that were the case, we'd see something like 60% unemployment, which hasn't happened. New industries form, and new tasks come about.

[MountainBiking]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

There's over 600,000 jobs out there now, waiting for Americans to take them.

Only thing is - there aren't any experienced or qualified people to take them.

A lot of CNC machinists, computer maintenance, robot maintenance, etc. that requires basic math skills. Well guess what our schools AREN'T preparing people for.

The new economy will be dominated by people who have the ability to maintain the robots, to understand the 3D drawings the engineers give them and be able to spot flaws in translating the drawings to cutting instructions determined by the program, etc.

Technology and outsourcing are two things that go hand in hand. An increase in technological prowess yields bigger productivity and causes the labor-dominant industries to look for cheaper labor markets. Then eventually the economy turns full circle, and more jobs are at home. This continues until the next tech boom.

We are in the jobs-coming-back-home cycle now. One need look no further than many many companies who have actually closed shops overseas for various reasons (i.e. labor in China no longer cheap, intellectual property rights not being followed, etc). Google it.

If there are so many jobs open why don't companies train people? The companies that train don't have to pay full wages with benefits like they pay their tenured and skilled employees. Are they afraid that when the training is completed the trained employee will leave? There are ways around that. For example: you can pay the trainee $9- $10 per hour when the regular wage is $20 or more per hour. You can bank that difference 100% and even 50% and put it away. As an incentive for the employee not to leave right after the on-the-job-paid training is completed (30 days? 60 days? 90 days?) you can give that money to the employee after ONE year. Certainly there are jobs where you can't train but people that are willing to learn will learn.

Most companies don't want to hire because their current employees are working harder for less money and in some cases one employee is doing the work of two people of 3 or 4 years ago. This is an employer market.

-Cheers.

[Lincolnian]

Growth requires resources. Water is a key resource. The US has a large supply of fresh water. We need to ensure that our country does not allow our water resources to be controlled by large corporate interests that wish to trade it on the world market ignoring the needs of our own citizens. We should be increasing our focus on conservation and protection of our water resources.

Upgrading our transportation, housing, electrical, and power systems to next generation standards can act as a economic power house. Many of these jobs rely heavily on domestic labor and resources. It is not an easy sell as it would require a change in popular culture and consumer habits. Current social patterns and communication technology are working against this objective as individuals are becoming more independent and rely less on personal/social contact. A major cultural shift toward national conservation requires an increased sense of community and national pride.

[DSOs]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

I know Boeing just partnered with the state to spend $20 million on a new training center.

This milking of the US taxpayer has been going on for many, many years. I can’t believe people still believe this crap!

Unless the States can demand major, fair stipulations, as well as mandatory punishment for not abiding by the agreement(s), these programs don’t work as advertised.

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by DSOs

This milking of the US taxpayer has been going on for many, many years. I can’t believe people still believe this crap!

Unless the States can demand major, fair stipulations, as well as mandatory punishment for not abiding by the agreement(s), these programs don’t work as advertised.

You say tomato ...

That $20 million investment was half Boeing's.

The other $10 million came from taxes.

But what does the state get?

The latest in training, tight integration with company processes, best in practice mentors, the newest machines essential to teach people how to use the fancy gadgets they HAVE to use these days to stay competitive.

And with over 4000 airplanes on the order books, which will take 10 YEARS to burn through at current rates, and well over 500 billion in backorder revenue ... they'll need people to build all those planes. And they'll have to compete with Airbus, who isn't afraid of investing in the latest technology. And those people that work for Boeing will ensure the state gets paid taxes from the company, as well as services and support jobs that come from great machinist and engineering jobs.

Yeah. A waste of taxpayer money Where do these people come from?

This is NOT some white collar handout nor is it corporate nepotism, or another Obama investment in Solyndra or anything.

It's business. Pure and simple. The state knows that Boeing doesn't necessarily have to build its next plant in WA. That plant in Charelston was a shot across the bow. Wake up or get out. Period. You want the jobs, taxes, support jobs, and all the things that come with the US's BIGGEST EXPORTER? Well invest in the ability for the workers to DO THEIR JOBS.

Seems fair. Either that, or lose tens of thousands of direct jobs. More like over 300,000 local jobs (direct + support, workers gotta eat, gotta live somewhere, gotta go traveling, gotta do drink some of that awesome beer they have out there, gotta spend money to raise a family, etc) if Boeing left.

Waste of taxpayer money it is not sir. The $10 million the state contributes will see dividends in returns for TEN YEARS at least!

[DSOs]

^^Boeing is starting to sound like General Motors. Let’s see what happens in the next 5~10 years.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

That $20 million investment was half Boeing's.

The other $10 million came from taxes.

The FEDERAL GOV’T has been gigantically paying the States’ expenses since 2008. Why should a Kansas taxpayer contribute to this Washington State quasi-investment? I used to know the answer to this question; but now, I’m not so sure.

OT: US youth better get up to speed & start connecting the dots!