Economic Fundamentals

One of the subtle but pernicious memes with which the right wing has infected media discourse is the idea that 'economic fundamentals' are essentially synonymous with the stock markets . If the market goes up, times are good. If not...well, the free market is still our savior.

Politicians aren't immune from this faulty logic. When McCain was lambasted recently for saying that those fundamentals were still strong, he was probably right--in his limited definition. If you look at corporate profits, the amount of cash they're hoarding, and returns from private hedge funds--well, they were all at almost preposterous levels (although even the hedgers suffered once the meltdown began).

At the same time, the entire landscape looks different down here on the ground. Workers who have seen their real wages decline over the years...their benefits wither or die...while the price of necessities soars through the roof--well, somehow they aren't quite so satisfied.

As a whole, the media have not yet figured out how to tell the story of home foreclosures from the standpoint of those on whom the foreclosures are enforced. Instead, it's remained largely a Wall Street perspective of how those loans are threatening six and seven figure jobs...and not those of the people bound to make monthly mortgage payments. (For immediate evidence, please tune in the idiot known as Jim Cramer on MSNBC).

But there is one 'fundamental' that requires special attention. It is the much-loved 'worker productivity'. The ownership class likes to use this as a badge of good corporate oversight. In fact, it is instead a prime indication of the consistent corporate policy of putting shareholder concerns above employee welfare.

The precursor rationale was 'household income', which substantially leaped during the Reagan years. This was quickly submitted as proof of the wisdom of the first 'trickle down' economic policy (the same one properly labeled 'voodoo economics' by the elder Bush when he ran for President). And also, the same policy which its visionary, David Stockman, later renounced. But the real story behind this rise in household income was the average number of people gainfully employed in U.S. households. For that was the time when spouses were not only more readily allowed into the workforce...but declining economic circumstances forced most of them to get a job. The 'family values' crowd, that celebrates the secondary role of females and the primacy of 'child rearing', chooses to ignore the fact that St. Ronnie effectively killed the 'stay-at-home-Mom' option.

'Worker productivity' is the current offshoot. Corporate overlords would like to view increases here as signs that individual workers are simply being persuaded by gifted management techniques to work harder. In fact, it's a simple matter of average hours on the job increasing (most often with little or no increase in compensation). And this happens for a consistent reason--remaining workers are required to take on the tasks of former colleagues who have been 'downsized'. It's a simple mathematical equation--the same amount of work divided by fewer workers equals more productivity.

To finish the loop, those companies who best increase 'productivity' are rewarded with higher share prices...and higher compensation for executives. And until the next economic crisis, these companies collectively cause the stock markets to rise.

To some, this may sound like class warfare--the middle class challenging the monied class.

To that, I quote that noted war time hero, George W. Bush: "Bring 'em on".