"Why the Stock Market Had a Terrible Day"

I think the Fed made the right move at its last rate setting meeting when the target rate was held constant, but Robert Reich doesn't share that view. He wants action on both the monetary and fiscal policy fronts to prevent a downturn, rebuild infrastructure, and implement green technologies. I don't think we need the threat of a recession to justify spending more on infrastructure and the environment, so I'd support that in any case:

Why the Stock Market Had a Terrible Day, by Robert Reich: The big surprise is why anyone should be surprised the stock market dropped 3 percent today. The immediate trigger was the price of oil moving above $140 a barrel for the first time. A secondary trigger was yesterday's decision by the Fed not to reduce interest rates. (Some conservatives maintain it was the Fed's failure to RAISE them that caused today's ruckus on Wall Street... They're wrong. The recession is the biggest worry for everyone...) Another was the implosion of the US autos sector, and additional writedowns by major Wall Street banks.

But behind all of this is the one fundamental fact that economic analysts would rather not dwell on: American consumers are at the end of their ropes. High energy prices have contributed to it, as have high food prices. Consumer confidence is plunging. Housing prices are still dropping, which means the piggy banks of home equity and refinancing are closing.

But without consumers, there's no one to buy all the goods and services we create. Sure, big American companies are doing fine abroad, but foreign sales can't sustain them. Nor can exports. Hence, bond defaults by companies are up. Earnings are down.

What to do? Two things. We need an expansive fiscal policy that stimulates the economy with infrastructure spending -- especially mass transit, levees, and bridges, as well as investments in green technologies.

We also need a more progressive tax system that puts more money into the hands of the middle class and working class -- which will spend it. ...

Comments

[Progressive Regressive]

RR..."We also need a more progressive tax system that puts more money into the hands of the middle class and working class..."

I'm for this. Get rid of all of those regressive taxes (sales tax, inflation tax, property tax, etc...) Also no income tax for anyone with less than 50K AGI per year.

[Never Learn]

It seems only the final collapse of the monetary system predicted by Mises will satisfy the Reich's of this world. They can't imagine the possibility that easy money caused this, and more easy money will not fix it.

Consumption is not the economy. Somehow many smart people seem to have equated the two. It's akin to judging your neighbors wealth by how much they spend. Can be very misleading.

[a]

"I don't think we need the threat of a recession to justify spending more on infrastructure and the environment."

Why does one need any justification to go out and head to the mall? When times are good, one has the money. And when times are bad, well, spending money that one doesn't have improves morale.

Spend, spend, spend. I think economists have forgotten that the name of their subject has the same root as "economy." Economy, now there's a thought. Consume what you produce, rather than spend what you don't have.

[a]

"American consumers are at the end of their ropes... But without consumers, there's no one to buy all the goods and services we create."

I choke... American consumers are at the end of their ropes because they have over-consumed for a generation and are up to their necks in debt. So the solution is - spend some more!

Here's a modest suggestion: if Reich is so concerned about finding a home for all those goods which we create, why not just give them away? Really. What's the difference between giving them away and "selling" them to consumers who are too indebted to afford them, other than that in the latter case we are playing pretend?

[a]

And why did the stock market have a terrible day? Because little by little investors are beginning to realize that many banks are effectively bankrupt. If they came clean with what was on their books and marked them with any honesty, they would have to close shop.

[bakho]

The stock market is not the economy.

[donna]

That's the problem, bakho -- for the last few years, the market and housing asset inflation HAS been the economy.

We gotta make real stuff to sell to the world. And pay people for making it, instead of paying the managers who manage the money.

[robertdfeinman]

I'd like to see, just once, Reich follow up his list of "shoulds" with a set of "hows".

Who is going to pass a progressive tax bill? The congress that gets the majority of its electoral funding from interests controlled by the wealthy?

Who is going to rein in the military spending and use the money for infrastructure instead? The congress that thinks that the military spending in their districts is untouchable?

How, Robert? How? Let's hear some ideas about practical politics. You worked in Washington. What do you teach in your government courses? How to find K street?

[Bruce Wilder]

bakho:"The stock market is not the economy."

The stock market is in better shape than the economy. And, what donna said

But, quips aside.

I just did a quick survey of the economic news, and I have a queasy feeling. The tide of bank and business failure is rising; another wave of credit crisis may be upon us.

Quibbling about weak-tea stimulus of lower interest rates or Federal checks, when what is needed is relief and major restructuring just reflects the general mood of denial.

[Bruce Wilder]

As to the plunge in the Dow, it was mostly a plunge in General Motors, as recently as 2000, one of the largest corporations in America and long a major component of the DJIA. As of today, it is a piddly rump, waiting to declare bankruptcy. My guess is that it gets taken out of the index, pronto.

But, it is only one of a slew of banks, retail and miscellaneous other firms sliding into insolvency. That's a very big deal, and will be a defining feature of this recession, . . . and the next?

[Fed Credibility]

As referenced in Russ Winter's blog, Barclay's had this to say about Fed credibility

US Federal Reserve has allowed the inflation genie out of the bottle and let its credibility fall “below zero”.

Apparently Barclay's is not part of the cabal of crooks here that pretend the Fed still has credibility.

[Robinia]

Great comments; so much more than RR's simple prescription (without, as pointed out, the "how to" on that).

The credit crunch returns time to time because the bodies are still being hidden.

Nobody knows where all the bodies are hidden; but, every now and then, when oil goes above some benchmark or GM slides below some metric, there is a movement in the waters.... and a few more bloated bodies are revealed....

We recognize and face and know the bankruptcy of certain ideas and approaches only in retrospect....

[don]

Robert is being stupid again. We must continue to borrow at unsustainable rates to support global aggregate demand, meanwhile allowing huge leakage through the current account to Asian currency mercantists. (China's dollar purchases more than offset all of the last fiscal stimulus.)

[Fred]

We'll get some sort of stimulus, sooner or later. At some point, the collapse of demand in the US will cause problems in China and there goes the commodities boom. Also, the housing bubble in Europe (worse than in the US) is about the burst. Combined with severe pressure on the high-tech northern european manufacturers due to competition from the US with its weak dollar (think Airbus versus Boeing) that should bring the euro back down. Final result: a worldwide shortfall of demand, which means the US can't rely on exports to bail itself out.

The long term solution is to clean out some of the household debt via bankruptcy, then run huge budget deficits via middle class tax cuts to get consumers spending again, with a nice big tariff to keep the demand from leaking out again via trade deficits. This solution will be forced upon Congress by high unemployment. Same solution will be required in Europe, but they are less flexible there for various reasons, so expect to see riots in the streets all over southern europe and France as unemployment skyrockets.

Hopefully, we'll see permanently higher real interest rates in the future in the developed world on so as to avoid any more asset bubbles. Replace easy/tight monetary policy by easy/tight fiscal policy.

[Ken Houghton]

Bruce Wilder got it right that GM was the major problem, but the idea that it will be taken out of the index is, er, optimistic.

Although if Toyota were to buy GM, the "Chrysler rule" (taken out b/c not an American company) would apply.

Maybe not Toyota. Are the Skoda/Lada people still around? Or is Tata Motors dumb enough to double-down on Bad Car Company Buys?

[piglet]

"Also, the housing bubble in Europe (worse than in the US)"

Which planet do you live on?

[piglet]

"We need an expansive fiscal policy that stimulates the economy with infrastructure spending -- especially mass transit, levees, and bridges, as well as investments in green technologies."

Of course we need that infrastructure spending, and no, that is not the same as continuing to fuel consumption by unsustainable borrowing. I don't know why everyone here seems to pick on RR for stating the obvious. What I don't get, though, is how you create infrastructure spending through "expansive fiscal policy". What is that supposed to mean?

[don]

"What I don't get, though, is how you create infrastructure spending through "expansive fiscal policy". What is that supposed to mean?"
Simple. The government borrows to spend on infrastructure. Think WPA. Better yet, imagine what happens when Congress starts to implement RR's idea. Maybe some pork and a few bridges to nowhere? More interstate highway construction? Better to just give the taxpayers some of their money back and let them decide how to spend it. If they want more or better bridges, they can use the money to have the local government supply them.

[piglet]

"The government borrows to spend on infrastructure."

Well, that's my question - why is that "fiscal policy"? In any case, your comment is absurd. How can the government "give the taxpayers their money back" if that money, as you say, is borrowed? And the idea that you can leave the kind of infrastructure projects that his country needs to local governments is naive at best.

Recently, I read an estimate that US public transport infrastructure needed at least 45 billion to cover the most urgent needs (in case you haven't heard, that infrastrucure is grossly overburdened and many of the people who would like to save gas find that the buses are full). 45 billion, how much is that? Nothing compared to what is being wasted in Iraq alone. Not much compared to the 18 billion that the oil industry gets in yearly tax subsidies. Ridiculous compared to what other, far smaller countries, invest. So why isn't there political consensus to find that money and do the necessary? The sad part is that nobody believes that the US is currently capable of making that kind of rational policy decision. Americans will have to suffer far more than they do now until meaningful change is even conceivable.

And I still don't get why people are mad at Robert Reich. It's hardly his fault.

[don]

'Fiscal policy' is often used loosely to refer to the difference between what government spends and what it collects in taxes. For example, expansionary fiscal policy can consist of a tax cut with spending held constant, or an increase in government spending with no increase in taxes. One difference between these two examples of expansionary fiscal policy is who decides where the amount borrowed is spent.
I guess we disagree on who is better suited to make such decisions.

[piglet]

I would think that "fiscal policy" refers to how the government finances its operations, not how it operates and what policies it implements. Do we spend these 45 billion dollars on new submarines for the Navy, or on new trains for Amtrak? What is "fiscal" about that choice? That's why I am puzzled.

"I guess we disagree on who is better suited to make such decisions."

I do not disagree that some projects are to be decided at the local level but others are of regional or national importance. Nobody seems to take issue with the federal highway system - why shouldn't the public transport infrastructure also be made a national priority? Moreover, local governments need help even to address their purely local infrastructure needs. We can continue to stick our heads in the sand but there is no way we can escape even in the short run the consequences of America's vast underinvestment in the Common Good. As Obama recently remarked, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the US national infrastructure a “D.” This is a nation, it sometimes appears, that is so self-obsessed and narcissistic that it has forgotten to even think about the future.

[gordon]

Piglet: "...nobody believes that the US is currently capable of making that kind of rational policy decision".

"The US" is an entity which covers a lot of ground. Even if the US Federal Govt. is currently in policy paralysis mode with a Bush in the White House facing a predominantly Democrat Congress and with a Presidential election underway, there are still State, municipal and big-city governments able to make a start. Maybe I'm "naive" to look elsewhere than at the Fed. Govt., but I would suggest that it is equally (maybe more) naive to discount the ability and will available in other parts of the US.

Many State and big-city govts. in the US have budgets bigger than some small nations. They have access to a large pool of talent, and many of them have decided to move without waiting for the Fed. Govt. I'm sure many readers and commenters have their own, maybe better, examples, but I point to California's greenhouse reduction plan and attempt to introduce stritcter vehicle emissions guidelines.

I can understand and sympathise with Piglet's frustration, but
"And not by eastern windows only
When daylight comes, comes in the light,
In front, the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
But westward, look, the land is bright."

I guess that's particularly appropriate for solar in Calif.!

[piglet]

Very well, but I was specifically referring to the underfunding of vital public infrastructure, including mass transit. It is worrying that there isn't even any meaningful national debate on that issue (Obama mentioned it only in a speech to the association of mayors). And most state and city governments don't have the means currently to do anything serious about it. At a time when millions of Americans desperately need public transport because driving becomes too expensive, and transit authorities remove the seats from buses to cram more commuters inside, there is hardly any public awareness that there is an issue at all. At least I can't make out any signs.

[mrrunangun]

The biggest reason we don't fund infrastructure maintenance is that political leaders find it more advantageous to take credit for the construction of new projects in their states or districts. When an appropriation was made (a few years before the NO flood) on the recommendation of the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the NO levees, the La. pols diverted the money to new projects they could take credit for. Same thing along the Mississippi upriver in the midwest. The bridges collapse and the rives flood, but the money goes to new but marginal projects. The bridge to nowhere is the most famous, but not untypical. To get money for maintenance can be ridiculed by political opponents as money spent to prevent the highly unlikely. They know that what we have we take for granted. Look how many people don't take care of their own stuff that they will have to replace themselves.

[Lafayette]

What colossal stupidity ....

Article: We need an expansive fiscal policy that stimulates the economy with infrastructure spending -- especially mass transit, levees, and bridges, as well as investments in green technologies.

It is difficult for Americans to understand how dilapidated America looks. Come abroad, look around towns here in Europe.

A government 5, 10 or 15 year Infrastructure Plan in most EU countries is re-conducted, by both the Left and Right, to assure that investments are ongoing to keep the country modern -- clean, efficient, functional. And to avoid the squalor that poverty, if left untreated, can blight the cities.

It is only by federal prompting that such investments will be made, particularly now when there is such an onus on developing new, renewable Energy Sources and getting our economies unhooked from the Carbon Molecule -- before it kills us.

All that costs money. Money being squandered in a uselessly stupid war over in the sandbox. Three Trillion Dollars that could have been spent, beginning 8 years ago, to avoid the present crunch in which America finds itself.

What colossal stupidity ....

We also need a more progressive tax system that puts more money into the hands of the middle class and working class -- which will spend it. ...

Either Reich thought this up all by himself, or he's been reading this forum.

Whichever, he's right. For all this fixation on accumulated wealth, let's face it, "you can't take it with you". The rich DO NOT SPEND money, in the aggregate, the way the middle-class does. They just accumulate it, smile at their Net Personal Asset statement from time to time ... but mostly play golf. Then they die and their inheritors continue to accumulate it, smile at their Net Personal Asset statement from time to time ... but mostly play golf.

Welcome to the Land of Lotus Eaters.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dearest Mark . . .

I do not think you and Robert Reich necessarily agree or disagree on the Federal Reserve action or inaction. From my read, his reference speaks to the decision the Conservatives preferred, a Rise in the rate . . . or at least that is my estimation.

Former Secretary Reich addresses a multiplicity of concerns, all of which have haunted me for years, When American corporations think it apt to lay off workers in order to increase stock prices, they forget the unemployed are consumers. Who (in this country) will buy their products if they have no earnings. Cars are costly. Food is dear. Fuel takes a bite out of a tight budget.

What we see in the auto industry occurs in most every business. Universities hire adjunct faculty. Corporations retain consultants. Cities, States, every locality uses the services of part-time employees. Large companies cut benefits and 401K matching plans. No one is safe. Americans scrimp and do not have enough to save. The infrastructure suffers. So too does the health of those who live with stress.

When people are not the priority, we all pay for the ills of exorbitant profits. With no work, or little job security, common folks barely function.

I understand why people whose pocketbooks are empty cry out, "No new taxes." Yet, I think it unwise for lawmakers to appease the electorate who employ them. Perhaps, humans no matter their profession think immediate gratification is good.

I believe offers of (gas tax) holidays, reduced levies, or levees built cheaply, promises of a renewed oil supply are folly. It seems to me the America people are their own worst enemies.

I invite your review and reflection on essays that endeavor to discuss what is a complex quandary.
United Auto Workers [UAW] Are Everyman; The American Experience
Let Them Eat Oil
The Elections and Ethics; Gas and Gratification

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[cm]

Ken Houghton: I thought Škoda was a subsidiary of VW.

[Lafayette]

Ethical Rules

BLA: When American corporations think it apt to lay off workers in order to increase stock prices, they forget the unemployed are consumers.

You are right, of course, to bring up this point.

For the moment, in America, the Ethical Rules of corporate governance dictate that first priority is given to maximizing gains on behalf of the company's owners -- stockholders as regards a publicly owned company, individuals/families if privately owned and often a mix of both.

The ethical concern that you propose pertains only in circumstances where the first priority above is seen to be met. That is, a company makes profit and that profit first goes to stock-holders and then to the community (in highly publicized community action programs that burnish the company's image). The sums spent on Community Programs are piddling compared to the profits, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is that the Ethical Rules of governance dictate a ranking of priorities -- first the stockholders, then the community. (Mind you, community can be extended to a national level in a collective sense, as you rightly imply.)

So, it should surprise no one that some European countries have found it right and proper to make downsizing a matter of judicial procedure. Yes, in some EU countries, namely France, before a company can fire massively, based upon the premise that the business no longer sustains their employment, a company has to prove it (with facts and figures) before a Commercial Court of law.

Which does not mean that, evidence shown, they do not get what they want. But, it does mean, at least, it is not automatic. They must prove their case with good arguments.

My point is this: Legally, an employment contract must also contain the conditions under which the contract can be either suspended or ended. When this legal notion comes into play, it is a Court of Law that decides whether the conditions have been met or not. Of course, it helps to have legislation that enshrines the notion of Employment Contracts by specifying their content, their duration and, of course, the conditions under which the contracts may be terminated.

That legal notion is not prevalent in American law. It is prevalent in many European countries. (Common law versus Civil Law, some might say.)

What is the consequence? Does such a law prevent unemployment? Of course not. If a company cannot compete in a market, it loses market share and therefore revenue. A company without revenue inevitably goes bankrupt, if not allowed to undertake measures to redress the situation -- meaning firing people in order to survive. Typically, before a company arrives at this drastic position, it borrows money against future earnings -- but debt has its costs.

But, by doing firing workers indiscriminately, as you put it, does it not undermine the economic health in general by reducing domestic demand? Of course, it does. But, do the companies have a choice? Which is the key question.

I think many companies do, but they don't make those choices. Like electricity, they take the path of least resistance. That is, since they CAN fire at will, they DO fire at will in order to redress accounts.

The question is, therefore, "For what reason are they doing it? To protect profits for the managers or is it a justifiable mission-critical necessity for the company's survival?

Now, let's go one step further. What if workers were also obliged to be company owners, by holding at least one share of company stock? How can management fire the company's owners? Only a court can decide that, much to the enjoyment and benefit of lawyers ...

In most instances, in America, the worker fired will never know the answer. Why is this so?

Because the latitude of companies to fire at will has been an accepted historical custom. Does that make it right? No, but customs will not change for as long as laws do not change them.

[Real Person from the Real World]

Yes, the US is dilapidated. Yes, we are wasting a fortune on wars that are doing little to make the world safer or better. The problem is how do we stop in midstream and start doing what we should have done long, long ago. Infrastructure costs, and so the squabbling over who pays goes on and on. The wars over in "the sand box" (great metaphor!) will be difficult now, to extricate ourselves from.

[gordon]

Lafayette, you might like to look at the ILO Termination of Employment Convention (C158) as a generalised statement of what you are proposing. The US sits on the ILO Governing Body.

[Lafayette]

Time to pull it out

rpftrw: The problem is how do we stop in midstream and start doing what we should have done long, long ago. Infrastructure costs, and so the squabbling over who pays goes on and on.

Well, it's a "vision thing". (With all the hoopla that surrounds the public nomination of an "Energy Czar".)

First, a leadership will is necessary to devise a plan that will develop, for instance, both renewable and alternative energy sources on a national scale, financed actively either through government expenditure or tax rebates (to businesses or families) that undertake projects to develop them.

The key is in looking at the energy sources we have and those we want to have. Sitting on a hunk of coal and debating till the cows come home how much an alternative energy source should cost compared to coal extraction is a non-starter. Coal is cheap, unless one adds a carbon tax for usage (to compensate its high level of CO2 pollution).

Legislation has to be, therefore, encompassing, that is, in phase with the desired objective.

So, I agree. America's fixation on cost-of-usage is a false debate because it does not take into account the cost necessary if we do nothing. How does one estimate the damage that can be done by climate change? The damage is so vast as to be incalculable.

So how does one impute that reparation cost towards calculating the proper level of a carbon-tax? The debate about costs is thus irrelevant, methinks.

Let's just do it. Like the Moon Program. Who ever thought of the costs before we embarked on a program that enthused the nation for near on a decade after JFK announced it? The country needs exactly the same "promotion" as regards increasing alternative Energy Sources. (With all the media hoopla that surrounds the public nomination of an "Energy Czar".)

PS: As an example of a hurdle: The world has gone mad building new nuclear generators and the US has its finger stuck up its you-know-what. It's time to pull it out.

[Lafayette]

It's a charade

Gordon: you might like to look at the ILO Termination of Employment Convention (C158) as a generalised statement of what you are proposing.

Yes, thank you.

And, I note the following text in C158 that applies:The provisions of this Convention shall, in so far as they are not otherwise made effective by means of collective agreements, arbitration awards or court decisions or in such other manner as may be consistent with national practice, be given effect by laws or regulations.

Article 4
The employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.

The above, as I read it, stipulates that the firing of employees must have a justified business-related argument. If C158 were legislated into law, it would mean that a company could be taken to court for not specifying precisely the reasons for off-loading workers.

The US is in the stone-age as regards worker's rights. But, that is only one area in which it is behind the times. Why? Because it does not suit BigBusiness that worker's rights restrict their operational latitude.

So, they abuse the privilege just because they can abuse it. Whilst we all dance merrily around the issue of Corporate Governance. It's a charade.

[Lafayette]

There is also the fact that the US has been sitting at the ILO for decades -- and nothing much from that body seems to have been able to penetrate.

[Lafayette]

ILO's vision of decent work

Work is central to people's well-being. In addition to providing income, work can pave the way for broader social and economic advancement, strengthening individuals, their families and communities. Such progress, however, hinges on work that is decent. Decent work sums up the aspirations of people in their working lives.

[mik]

So, they abuse the privilege just because they can abuse it. Whilst we all dance merrily around the issue of Corporate Governance. It's a charade.

Economists are so sophisticated, they forgot how to chew gum while walking.

You want to improve the lot of US wage earners?

How about starting with simplest things?

Heavily fine at first and jail subsequently all employers who employ illegals.
It will free up may be 5 to 10 million jobs and you will see improvements in wages and conditions for the low tier of workers virtually right away.

H1B and L1 programs are illuminated.
Suddenly you will see up to 1 million jobs in IT, high tech and health fields open up.
By some miracle IT wages will start grow again after 10 years interruption.
Suddenly you will see more people enroll in science/tech fields in colleges instead of law.

All research results paid by US taxpayer must be exploited in the US or US taxpayer is fully reimbursed by the corps, domestic or not, that exploit results of research abroad.
US corps are put on notice that they cannot transfer for free technology paid by the US taxpayer .

Chinese exports are presumed guilty until proven innocent in illegal stealing someone else intellectual property and/or being unsafe to use.

Lets start with these simple measures.

Sophisticated measures that only econs could understand and nobody can get working could wait.

[Lafayette]

Failed a course in Econ 101?

mik: Chinese exports are presumed guilty until proven innocent in illegal stealing someone else intellectual property and/or being unsafe to use.

Yes, as long as the same standards applied to US goods. For instance, as regards sanitary checks for "mad cow" disease, which the US Dept. of Agriculture refuses to establish except in a cursory fashion.

Ebay was just fined, today, 40 million Euros for allowing the sale of counterfeit designer goods made by a French company.

mik: US corps are put on notice that they cannot transfer for free technology paid by the US taxpayer .

This is a Know-nothing Nonsense. It’s already the case, known as patent protection.

mik: H1B and L1 programs are illuminated. Suddenly you will see up to 1 million jobs in IT, high tech and health fields open up.

Eliminated, not illuminated. You're the one who needs illumination.

And, the 1 million jobs in high-tech wont necessarily appear.

And, of course, this invites retaliation from abroad. The Americans with jobs in high-tech in foreign countries … you don’t give a damn about them? What if India puts the same restrictions on import of hi-tech products/services from the US?

This is a Lose-Lose proposition.

Mik: Heavily fine at first and jail subsequently all employers who employ illegals.

Not bad, this one. But, alternatively, the US needs these workers.

We should determine what work (and when) is fit for migrants. Then we recruit certified talent directly from US Embassies and Consulates abroad. Meaning those recruited are authorized to come, but who must leave at the end of their contract or become illegal workers. And anyone found working without a legal contract, is deported -- and the contractor fined heavily. And, these legal aliens have equal protection under existing American Labor Laws -- which ain't a helluva lot -- in case of exploitation.

No country should abandon its sovereign right to stop wanton immigration. And certainly, politicians should not pander to the vote of nationalized once-illegal migrants. It’s just plain wrong. We must explain the difference between the "right way to migrate to the US" and the "wrong way to migrate to the US".

Besides, immigration into the US has already diminished by 64% from its peak in 2000. (See here .) And, it appears that many illegal migrants are going home on their own.

Now is the time to implement further controls, but by all means a managed approach to immigration. We need that manpower to do jobs apparently “below the dignity of most Americans”. We also will need hi-tech talent as well.

Yours is a load of protectionist, know-nothing nonsense. And the anti-economist bent must have a reason. You’ve failed a course in Econ 101? Is that it?