Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 2:–Describe the economic and political dynamics that brought about the birth of RCA.–Videos

Posted on June 20, 2011. Filed under: Audio, Broadcasting, Business, Inventions, Mass Media, Radio, Technology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

II. Describe the economic and political dynamics that brought about the birth of RCA.

 

        A hundred years ago radio or the wireless was used as a point-to-point communications device similar to the use of the telegraph and telephone using wires. 

   Radio waves instead of wires were used primarily in maritime communications to send messages from ship to ship and ship to shore.

   British-owned Marconi Company and its subsidiary,  Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America, dominated the radio industry and controlled important patents including the Fleming value invented by John Fleming.

Sir John Ambrose Fleming

The Fleming value or vacuum tube consisted of a metal plate and thin wire enclosed in a glass bulb. The device enable the translating of an alternating current, like a radio wave, into direct current that could be detected by a radio receiver.

   The challenge was the detection of weak radio signals by radio receivers. Lee De Forest solved this problem by his invention of the audion that amplified weak radio signals. This was accomplished using a modified Fleming value with a tiny wire grid between the wire and the plate. The wire grid acted as an amplifier and boasted weak radio signals millions of times so that radio signals could be easily detected.

 

Lee De Forest

AT&T Archives: Bottle of Magic

 

Radio Commentator Jean Shepherd Meets Lee De Forest During WW2

 

A small bit of Radio History, Lee De Forest Audion, Marconi

De Forest envisioned radio as a broadcasting medium where entertainment and information would be received by a wide audience with radio receivers.

 This was in sharp contrast to the then use of radios as wireless telegraphy and telephony or a point-to-point communication device.

   The Marconi Company sued De Forest for patent infringement in using the Fleming value.

Faced with legal challenges from both the Marconi Company and the stockholders of his own company, De Forest Radio Telephone Company, De Forest sold his right to the audion to American Telephone & Telegraph or AT&T.

AT&T in turn used the audion to amplify signals in long distant calls.

De Forest continued to manufacture audions to radio hobbyists and manufactured radios or wireless sets for the military in World War I.

   General Electric or GE was also interested in radio.

GE held the patent rights to the high-speed alternators that produced electrical current with much higher frequencies than ordinary generators.

These alternators were used as continuous radio-wave generators.

Reginald Fessendon had invented this alternator design and demonstrated that the human voice could be carried by continuous radio waves generated by this transmitter.

Reginald Fessendon

GE had also improved the vacuum tube used in radios.

    Westinghouse, a major rival of General Electric, was also interested in radio. Westinghouse had acquired the patent rights to both an improved vacuum tube and the heterodyn radio receiver that was invented by Reginald Fessenden.

   Also, Edwin Armstrong had improved the audion by developing a positive feedback regenerative circuit that increased radio wave reception by regeneration amplification.

Edwin Armstrong

 

RCA Radio Model RC Operation

This RC radio is among one of the first products marketed by RCA in and about 1921. Westinghouse produced this RC radio for RCA. It is a battery set and uses three 01A vacuum tubes. The circuit is Edwin Howard Armstrong first major discovery, the regenerative circuit patented in 1914.

 

   In summary, the patents for radio transmitters and receivers were held by a number of companies and individuals including British Marconi, American Marconi, General Electric (GE), Westinghouse, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), Lee De Forest and Edwin Armstrong.

For radio to advance in the future would require the pooling of these patents among economic competitive rivals.

   When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, the Federal Government gave the United States Navy the responsibility for all radio operations.

The United States Navy took over all commercial radio stations including forty-five commercial and eight high-powered stations owned and operated by American Marconi.

The Navy also assumed responsibility and full liability for all patent infringement.

Thus companies doing radio research and development were free to pool discoveries to develop a better radio system.

This resulted in better radio transmitters, radio receivers and vacuum tubes when War World I ended in November 1918.

   After the war, the United States Navy wanted to retain its control and monopoly over their radio system.

However, public sentiment was against this idea. The Navy then announced it was no longer responsible for patent infringement law suits.

This immediately lead to the patent problems that existed prior to the outbreak of the war.

  The Marconi Company was trying to purchase from General Electric the exclusive use of the high-powered alternators developed during World War 1.

Should the Marconi Company  be successful, it would dominate the radio transmitter market in America.

The United States Federal Government went to GE to come up with a solution to the situation. GE did not want to sell its alternators to the Marconi Company and the U.S. Government was opposed to  Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America controlled by the  British Marconi Company to dominate the radio industry in America.

Given this economic and political pressure, the  Marconi Company agreed to sell American Marconi to a new American company, Radio Corporation of America or RCA.

The stockholders of Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America exchanged their stock for shares of stock in RCS and British Marconi got cash from General Electric.

   RCA was born on October 17, 1919 when  Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America became RCA.

RCA viewed radio not as a medium for mass communications by broadcasting but as a point-to-point communications device like the telegraph or telephone.

The RCA business model was focused on making money by sending wireless telegraph and telephony to Europe, Latin America and Asia.

    The patent infringement and law suit problem was solved by GE and RCA entering into a cross-licensing agreement which allowed each company to use the other company’s discoveries.

Since AT&T still owned the De Forest audion patent, the U.S. government pressured AT&T to sign a cross-licensing agreement with RCA.

Westinghouse, a major GE rival, also held several important radio related patents. With GE having a major ownership stake in RCA, Westinghouse started its own wireless company, International Radio Telegraph Company.

GE offered Westinghouse a large stake in RCA in exchange for placing Westinghouse’s patents in the patent pool.

    By 1921, the major stockholders of RCA were GE with 30% of the shares, Westinghouse with about 20%, AT&T with about 10% and another 4% held by the United Fruit Company.

The cross-licensing of patents solved the existing patent problem. The radio industry was divided up with AT&T’s Western Electric subsidiary manufacturing radio transmitters, GE and Westinghouse manufacturing radio receivers or equipment, and RCA selling the radio receivers and equipment.

What the architects of RCA had failed to recognize is the future of radio was in broadcasting–mass communications.

Radio broadcasting took off in the roaring 20s and continues today.

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Radio History

 

1920’s the radio

 

When Radio Was #1

 

When Radio Was #2

 

When Radio Was #3

 

When Radio Was #4

 

When Radio Was #5

 

When Radio Was #6

 

When Radio Was #7

 

 

The beginning of Commercial Radio

 

RCA

“…RCA Corporation, founded as the Radio Corporation of America, was an electronics company in existence from 1919 to 1986. Currently, the RCA trademark is owned by the French conglomerate Technicolor SA through RCA Trademark Management S.A., a company owned by Technicolor. The trademark is used by Sony Music Entertainment and Technicolor, which licenses the name to other companies like Audiovox and TCL Corporation for products descended from that common ancestor.[2]

Origins

 RCA’s organization by General Electric

On August 4, 1914, the United Kingdom and France declared war on the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, following the German and Austrian invasions of their neighbors, including Serbia and the Russian Empire, which started World War I. Radio traffic across the Atlantic Ocean increased dramatically after the western Allies cut the German transatlantic submarine communication cables (telegraph-only at that time, well-before the first transatlantic telephone cable connected the United States with France in 1956.) Germany, Austria-Hungary, and their allies in Europe (the Central Powers) maintained contact with neutral countries in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru via long-distance radio communications, as well as via telegraph cables owned by neutral countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark.

In 1917, the U.S. Federal Government took charge of the patents owned by the major companies involved in radio manufacture in the United States in order to devote radio technology to the war effort. All production of radio equipment was allocated to the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy sought to maintain a Federal monopoly of all uses of radio technology. However, the wartime takeover of all radio systems ended with the tabling of a bill to continue this by the U.S. Congress sometime in the latter part of 1918. {World War I ended on November 11th.)

The ending of the Federal Government’s monopoly in radio communications did not prevent the Departments of War and of the Navy from creating a national radio system for the United States.[3] On April 8, 1919, the naval and Admiral W. H. G. Bullard and Captain Stanford C. Hooper met with executives of the General Electric Corporation (G.E.) to ask that their corporation to discontinue selling any of its Alexanderson alternators (used in the high-power amplitude modulation radio transmitters of that era) to the British-owned Marconi Company, and to its subsidiary, the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America.

The gist of the Army’s and Navy’s proposal was that if G.E. created an American-owned radio company, then the Army and Navy would be able to bring into effect a monopoly of long-distance radio communications via this company. This marked the beginning of a series of negotiations through which G.E. would buy the American Marconi company and then incorporate what would be called the Radio Corporation of America.[4]

Establishment

The incorporation of the assets of Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America (including David Sarnoff[5]), the Pan-American Telegraph Company, and those already controlled by the United States Navy led to a new publicly held company formed by General Electric (which owned a controlling interest) on 17 October 1919.[6] The following cooperation among RCA, General Electric, the United Fruit Company, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) brought about innovations in high-power radio technology, and also the founding of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) in the United Sates. The Army and the Navy turned over the former American Marconi radio terminals (to RCA) that had been confiscated during World War I. (Note: there were no commercial radio stations anywhere in the world before 1922 when the station KDKA started broadcasting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.) Admiral Bullard received a seat on the Board of Directors of RCA for his efforts in establishing RCA. The result was Federally-created monopolies in radio for GE and the Westinghouse Corporation and in telephone systems for the American Telephone & Telegraph Company.

The argument by the Department of War and the Department of the Navy that the usable radio frequencies were limited, and hence needed to be appropriated for use before other countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Canada monopolized them, collapsed in the mid-1920s following the discovery of the practicality of the use of the shortwave radio band (3.0 MHz though 30.0 MHz) for very long-range radio communications.[7]

The first chief executive officer of RCA was Owen D. Young;[8] David Sarnoff became its general manager. The documents of incorporation of RCA explicitly required it be mostly owned by Americans. RCA took over the marketing of the radio equipment of G.E. and Westinghouse Westinghouse, and in follow-on agreements, RCA also acquired the radio patents that had been held by Westinghouse and the United Fruit Company. As the years went on, RCA either took over, or produced for itself, a large number of patents, including that of the superheterodyne receiver.

Over the years, RCA continued to operate international telecommunications services, under its subsidiary RCA Communications, Inc., and later the RCA Global Communications Company. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Corporation_of_America

 

John Ambrose Fleming

“…Sir John Ambrose Fleming (29 November 1849 – 18 April 1945) was an English electrical engineer and physicist. He is known for inventing the first thermionic valve or vacuum tube, the diode, then called the kenotron in 1904.[1] He is also famous for the left hand rule (for electric motors). …”

“…After leaving the University of Nottingham in 1882, Fleming took up the post of “Electrician” to the Edison Electrical Light Company, advising on lighting systems and the new Ferranti alternating current systems. In 1884 Fleming joined University College London taking up the Chair of Electrical Technology, the first of its kind in England. Although this offered great opportunities, he recalls in his autobiography that the only equipment provided to him was a blackboard and piece of chalk. In 1897 the Pender Laboratory was founding at University College, London and Fleming took up the Pender Chair after the £5000 was endowed as a memorial to John Pender, the founder of Cable and Wireless.[4] In 1899 Fleming became Scientific Advisor to the Marconi Company and soon after began work on the designing the power plant to enable the Marconi Company to transmit across the Atlantic.

In November 1904, he invented the two-electrode vacuum-tube rectifier, which he called the oscillation valve. He would later patent this invention.[5] It was also called a thermionic valve, vacuum diode, kenotron, thermionic tube, or Fleming valve. The Supreme Court of the United States later invalidated the patent because of an improper disclaimer and, additionally, maintained the technology in the patent was known art when filed.[6] This invention is often considered to have been the beginning of electronics, for this was the first vacuum tube.[7] Fleming’s diode was used in radio receivers and radars for many decades afterwards, until it was superseded by solid state electronic technology more than 50 years later.

Fleming retired from University College, London in 1927 at the age of 77. He remained active, becoming a committed advocate of the new technology of Television which included servicing as the first president of the Television Society.

John Ambrose Fleming (1906)

In 1906, Lee De Forest of the U.S. added a control “grid” to the valve to create a vacuum tube RF detector called the Audion, leading Fleming to accuse him of copying his ideas. De Forest’s device was shortly refined by him and Edwin H. Armstrong into the first electronic amplifier, a tube called the triode. The triode was vital in the creation of long-distance telephone and radio communications, radars, and early electronic digital computers (mechanical and electro-mechanical digital computers already existed using different technology). The court battle over these patents lasted for many years with victories at different stages for both sides. Fleming also contributed in the fields of photometry, electronics, wireless telegraphy (radio), and electrical measurements. He coined the term Power Factor to describe the true power flowing in an AC power system. He was knighted in 1929, and died at his home in Sidmouth, Devon in 1945. His contributions to electronic communications and radar were of vital importance in winning World War II. Fleming was awarded the IRE Medal of Honor in 1933 for “the conspicuous part he played in introducing physical and engineering principles into the radio art”.

Note from eulogy at the Centenary celebration of the invention of the thermionic valve:

One century ago, in November 1904, John Ambrose Fleming FRS, Pender Professor at UCL, filed GB 190424850  in Great Britain, for a device called the Thermionic Valve. When inserted together with a galvanometer, into a tuned electrical circuit, it could be used as a very sensitive rectifying detector of high frequency wireless currents, known as radio waves. It was a major step forward in the ‘wireless revolution’.

In November 1905, he patented the “Fleming Valve” (US 803684  ). As a rectifying diode, and forerunner to the triode valve and many related structures, it can also be considered to be the device that gave birth to modern electronics.

In the ensuing years, valves quickly superseded “cat’s whiskers” and were the main device used to create the huge electronics industry that we take for granted today. They remained dominant until the transistor took dominance in the early 1970s

Today, descendants of the original valve (or vacuum tube) still play an important role in a range of applications. They can be found in the power stages of radio and television transmitters, in some high-end audio amplifiers, as detectors of optical and short wavelength radiation, and in sensitive equipment that must be “radiation-hard”. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ambrose_Fleming

Lee De Forest

“…Lee De Forest (August 26, 1873 – June 30, 1961) was an American inventor with over 180 patents to his credit. De Forest invented the Audion, a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them. De Forest is one of the fathers of the “electronic age”, as the Audion helped to usher in the widespread use of electronics. He is also credited with one of the principal inventions which brought sound to motion pictures.

He was involved in several patent lawsuits and he spent a substantial part of his income from his inventions on the legal bills. He had four marriages and 25 companies, he was defrauded by business partners (as well as defrauding business partners himself), and he was once indicted for mail fraud, but was later acquitted.

He typically signed his name “Lee de Forest.”

He was a charter member of the Institute of Radio Engineers, one of the two predecessors of the IEEE (the other was the American Institute of Electrical Engineers).

DeVry University was originally named DeForest Training School, after Lee De Forest, by its founder Dr. Herman A. DeVry, who was a friend and colleague of De Forest’s.

“…Audion

De Forest had an interest in wireless telegraphy and he invented the Audion in 1906. He then developed an improved wireless telegraph receiver.

In January 1906, De Forest filed a patent for diode vacuum tube detector, a two-electrode device for detecting electromagnetic waves, a variant of the Fleming valve invented two years earlier. One year later, De Forest filed a patent for a three-electrode device that was a much more sensitive detector of electromagnetic waves. It was granted US Patent 879,532 in February 1908. The device was also called the De Forest valve, and since 1919 has been known as the triode. De Forest’s innovation was the insertion of a third electrode, the grid, between the cathode (filament) and the anode (plate) of the previously invented diode. The resulting triode or three-electrode vacuum tube could be used as an amplifier of electrical signals, notably for radio reception. The Audion was the fastest electronic switching element of the time, and was later used in early digital electronics (such as computers). The triode was vital in the development of transcontinental telephone communications, radio, and radar after Nikola Tesla’s and Guglielmo Marconi’s progress in radio in the 1890s, until the 1948 invention of the transistor.

De Forest had, in fact, stumbled onto this invention via tinkering and did not completely understand how it worked. De Forest had initially claimed that the operation was based on ions created within the gas in the tube when, in fact, it was shown by others to operate with a vacuum in the tube. The American inventor Irving Langmuir of General Electric Corp. was the first to correctly explain the theory of operation of the device, and also to significantly improve it.

 

In 1904, a De Forest transmitter and receiver were set up aboard the steamboat Haimun operated on behalf of The Times, the first of its kind.[3] On July 18, 1907, De Forest broadcast the first ship-to-shore message from the steam yacht Thelma. The communication provided quick, accurate race results of the Annual Inter-Lakes Yachting Association (I-LYA) Regatta. The message was received by his assistant, Frank E. Butler of Monroeville, Ohio, in the Pavilion at Fox’s Dock located on South Bass Island on Lake Erie. DeForest disliked the term “wireless”, and chose a new moniker, “radio”. De Forest is credited with the birth of public radio broadcasting when on January 12, 1910, he conducted experimental broadcast of part of the live performance of Tosca and, the next day, a performance with the participation of the Italian tenor Enrico Caruso from the stage of Metropolitan Opera House in New York City.[4] [5]

 

De Forest came to San Francisco in 1910, and worked for the Federal Telegraph Company, which began developing the first global radio communications system in 1912. California Historical Landmark No. 836 is a bronze plaque at the eastern corner of Channing St. and Emerson Ave. in Palo Alto, California which memorializes the Electronics Research Laboratory at that location and De Forest for the invention of the three-element radio vacuum tube.

 Middle years

The United States Attorney General sued De Forest for fraud (in 1913) on behalf of his shareholders, stating that his claim of regeneration was an “absurd” promise (he was later acquitted). Nearly bankrupt with legal bills, De Forest sold his triode vacuum-tube patent to AT&T and the Bell System in 1913 for the bargain price of $50,000.

De Forest filed another patent in 1916 that became the cause of a contentious lawsuit with the prolific inventor Edwin Howard Armstrong, whose patent for the regenerative circuit had been issued in 1914. The lawsuit lasted twelve years, winding its way through the appeals process and ending up before the Supreme Court in 1926. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of De Forest, although the view of many historians is that the judgment was incorrect.[6]

Radio pioneer

In 1916, De Forest, from experimental radio station 2XG in New York City, broadcast the first radio advertisements (for his own products) and the first Presidential election report by radio in November 1916 for Charles Evans Hughes and Woodrow Wilson. A few months later, DeForest moved his tube transmitter to Highbridge, Bronx. [7] Like Charles Herrold in San Jose, California — who had been broadcasting since 1909 with call letters “FN”, “SJN”, and then “6XF” — De Forest had a license from the Department of Commerce for an experimental radio station, but, like Herrold, had to cease all broadcasting when the U.S. entered World War I in April 1917. From April 1920 to November 1921, DeForest broadcast from station 6XC at the California Theater at Market and Fourth Streets in San Francisco. In late 1921, 6XC moved its transmitter to Ocean View Drive in the Rockridge section of Oakland, California and became KZY.[8][9]

Just like Pittsburgh’s KDKA four years later in November 1920, DeForest used the Hughes/Wilson presidential election returns for his broadcast. The New York American installed a private wire and bulletins were sent out every hour. About 2000 listeners heard The Star-Spangled Banner and other anthems, songs, and hymns. DeForest went on to sponsor radio broadcasts of music, featuring opera star Enrico Caruso and many other events, but he received little financial backing.

In April 1923, the De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Company, which manufactured De Forest’s Audions for commercial use, was sold to a coalition of automobile makers, who expanded the company’s factory to cope with rising demand for radios. The sale also bought the services of De Forest, who was focusing his attention on newer innovations.[10] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_De_Forest

 

Reginald Aubrey Fessenden

“…Reginald Aubrey Fessenden (October 6, 1866 – July 22, 1932), a naturalized American citizen born in Canada, was an inventor who performed pioneering experiments in radio, including early—and possibly the first—radio transmissions of voice and music. In his later career he received hundreds of patents for devices in fields such as high-powered transmitting, sonar, and television. …”

“…The development of a rotary-spark transmitter was something of a stop-gap measure, to be used until a superior approach could be perfected. Fessenden felt that, ultimately, a continuous-wave transmitter—one that produced a pure sine wave signal on a single frequency—would be far more efficient, particularly because it could be used for quality audio transmissions. His design idea was to take a basic electrical alternator, which normally operated at speeds that produced alternating current of at most a few hundred hertz, and greatly speed it up in order to create electrical currents at tens of kilohertz. Thus, the high-speed alternator would produce a steady radio signal when connected to an aerial. Then, by simply placing a carbon microphone in the transmission line, the strength of the signal could be varied in order to add sounds to the transmission—in other words, amplitude modulation would be used to impress audio on the radio frequency carrier wave. However, it would take many years of expensive development before even a prototype alternator-transmitter would be ready, and a few more years beyond that for high-power versions to become available.

Fessenden contracted with General Electric to help design and produce a series of high-frequency alternator-transmitters. In 1903, Charles Proteus Steinmetz of GE delivered a 10 kHz version which proved of limited use and could not be directly used as a radio transmitter. Fessenden’s request for a faster, more powerful unit was assigned to Ernst F. W. Alexanderson, and in August, 1906 he delivered an improved model which operated at a transmitting frequency of approximately 50 kHz, although with far less power than Fessenden’s rotary-spark transmitters.

The alternator-transmitter achieved the goal of transmitting quality audio signals, but the lack of any way to amplify the signals meant they were somewhat weak. On December 21, 1906, Fessenden made an extensive demonstration of the new alternator-transmitter at Brant Rock, showing its utility for point-to-point wireless telephony, including interconnecting his stations to the wire telephone network. A detailed review of this demonstration appeared in The American Telephone Journal.[2]

A few days later, two additional demonstrations took place, which appear to be the first audio radio broadcasts of entertainment and music ever made to a general audience—maybe. (Beginning in 1904, the U.S. Navy had broadcast daily time signals and weather reports, but these employed spark transmitters, transmitting in Morse code). On the evening of December 24, 1906 (Christmas Eve), Fessenden used the alternator-transmitter to send out a short program from Brant Rock. It included a phonograph record of Ombra mai fu (Largo) by George Frideric Handel, followed by Fessenden himself playing the song O Holy Night on the violin. Finishing with reading a passage from the Bible: ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will’ (Gospel of Luke 2:14).[3] He petitioned his listeners to write in about the quality of the broadcast as well as their location when they heard it. Surprisingly, his broadcast was heard several hundred miles away, however accompanying the broadcast was a disturbing noise. This noise was due to irregularities in the spark gap transmitter he used.[4]

On December 31, New Year’s Eve, a second short program was broadcast. The main audience for both these transmissions was an unknown number of shipboard radio operators along the East Coast of the United States. Fessenden claimed that the Christmas Eve broadcast had been heard “as far down” as Norfolk, Virginia, while the New Year Eve’s broadcast had reached places in the Caribbean. Although now seen as a landmark, these two broadcasts were barely noticed at the time and soon forgotten— the only first-hand account appears to be a letter Fessenden wrote on January 29, 1932 to his former associate, Samuel M. Kinter.[3] There are no known accounts in any ships’ radio logs, nor any contemporary literature, of the reported holiday demonstrations.

(Broadcasting historian James E. O’Neal, in a series of articles on the Radio World website [5] ,[6] suggests that Fessenden, writing a quarter-century after the fact, may have confused the dates; O’Neal suggests Fessenden was remembering instead a series of tests he’d conducted in 1909.)

There is solid historical evidence, however, that Fessenden’s demonstrations of “wireless telephony” were well know at the time. Documentation of Fessenden’s demonstration of radio-transmitted voice is provided by a New York Time’s article, dated Sunday, September 1, 1907, titled: “Telephoning at Sea”. It announced that the “Navy Department is about to install wireless telephone apparatus on all battleships destined for the Pacific, this Fall. Practicable wireless telephony over a distance of five miles in all weathers is guaranteed by the company furnishing the instruments. Under favorable conditions, it is reported, a much greater distance for communication is possible.” The article accurately describes the science involved, saying: “The Hertzian waves will penetrate opaque substances, and the amplitude and intensity of the waves may be so varied as to reproduce faithfully the vibrations of the human voice.” The same article further states that: “recently, the Fessenden wireless system demonstrated the practicability of transmitting spoken words from a tall mast at Brent Rock to Plymouth, twelve miles away.” [7] Intense competition among developers of wireless technology, and the expectation of possible government contracts may have limited the scope of public promotion of the apparatus features and capabilities.

Fessenden’s broadcast foreshadowed of the future of radio. (Although primarily designed for transmissions spanning a few kilometers, on a couple of occasions the test Brant Rock audio transmissions were apparently overheard by NESCO employee James C. Armor across the Atlantic at the Machrihanish site). …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessendon

Edwin Howard Armstrong

“…Edwin Howard Armstrong (December 18, 1890 – January 31, 1954) was an American electrical engineer and inventor. Armstrong was the inventor of modern frequency modulation (FM) radio.

Edwin Howard Armstrong was born in New York City, New York, in 1890. He studied at Columbia University and later became a professor there. He invented the regenerative circuit while he was an undergraduate and patented it in 1914, the super-regenerative circuit (patented 1922), and the superheterodyne receiver (patented 1918).[2][3]

“…Work and patent disputes

Armstrong’s “feed back” circuit drawing, from Radio Broadcast vol. 1 no. 1 1922.

Howard Armstrong contributed the most to modern electronics technology. His discoveries revolutionized electronic communications. Regeneration, or amplification via positive feedback is still in use to this day. Also, Armstrong discovered that Lee De Forest’s Audion would go into oscillation when feedback was increased. Thus, the Audion could not only detect and amplify radio signals, it could transmit them as well.

While De Forest’s addition of a third element to the Audion (the grid) and the subsequent move to modulated (voice) radio is not disputed, De Forest did not put his device to work. Armstrong’s research and experimentation with the Audion moved radio reception beyond the crystal set and spark-gap transmitters. Radio signals could be amplified via regeneration to the point of human hearing without a headset. Armstrong later published a paper detailing how the Audion worked,[5] something De Forest could not do. De Forest did not understand the workings of his Audion.

Armstrong’s discovery and development of superheterodyne technology made radio receivers, then the primary communications devices of the time, more sensitive and selective. Before heterodyning, radio signals often overrode and interfered with each other. Heterodyning also made radio receivers much easier to use, rendering obsolete the multitude of tuning controls on radio sets of the time. The superheterodyne technology is still used today.

Armstrong is possibly best known for his discovery of wide-band frequency modulation. FM was born of a request by David Sarnoff of RCA as a means to eliminate static in radio reception. While Sarnoff was understandably impressed with Armstrong’s FM system, he also understood that it was not compatible with his own AM empire. Sarnoff came to see FM as a threat and refused to support it further.

Many of Armstrong’s inventions were ultimately claimed by others in patent lawsuits. In particular, the regenerative circuit, which Armstrong patented in 1914 as a “wireless receiving system,” was subsequently patented by Lee De Forest in 1916; De Forest then sold the rights to his patent to AT&T. Between 1922 and 1934, Armstrong found himself embroiled in a patent war, between himself, RCA, and Westinghouse on one side, and De Forest and AT&T on the other. At the time, this action was the longest patent lawsuit ever litigated, at 12 years. Armstrong won the first round of the lawsuit, lost the second, and stalemated in a third. Before the Supreme Court of the United States, De Forest was granted the regeneration patent in what is today widely believed to be a misunderstanding of the technical facts by the Supreme Court.[6]

By early 1923, Armstrong was a millionaire as a result of licensing his patents to RCA.[4]

In 1946 the FCC’s decision to use Armstrong’s FM system as the standard for NTSC television sound gave Armstrong another chance at royalty payments. However, RCA refused to pay royalties and encouraged other television makers not to pay them either. …”

…FM Radio

Even as the regenerative-circuit lawsuit continued, Armstrong was working on another momentous invention. While working in the basement laboratory of Columbia’s Philosophy Hall, he created wide-band frequency modulation radio (FM). Rather than varying the amplitude of a radio wave to create sound, Armstrong’s method varied the frequency of the wave instead. FM radio broadcasts delivered a much clearer sound, free of static, than the AM radio dominant at the time. (Armstrong received a patent on wide-band FM on December 26, 1933.[7]

In 1922, John Renshaw Carson of AT&T, inventor of Single-sideband modulation (SSB modulation), had published a paper in the Proceedings of the IRE arguing that FM did not appear to offer any particular advantage.[8] Armstrong managed to demonstrate the advantages of FM radio despite Carson’s skepticism in a now-famous paper on FM in the Proceedings of the IRE in 1936,[9] which was reprinted in the August 1984 issue of Proceedings of the IEEE.[10]

Today the consensus regarding FM is that narrow band FM is not so advantageous in terms of noise reduction, but wide band FM can bring great improvement in signal to noise ratio if the signal is stronger than a certain threshold. Hence Carson was not entirely wrong, and the Carson bandwidth rule for FM is still important today. Thus, both Carson and Armstrong ultimately contributed significantly to the science and technology of radio. The threshold concept was discussed by Murray G. Crosby (inventor of Crosby system for FM Stereo) who pointed out that for wide band FM to provide better signal to noise ratio, the signal should be above a certain threshold, according to his paper published in Proceedings of the IRE in 1937.[11] Thus Crosby’s work supplemented Armstrong’s paper in 1936.

Armstrong conducted the first large scale field tests of his FM radio technology on the 85th floor of RCA’s (Radio Corporation of America) Empire State Building from May 1934 until October 1935. However RCA had its eye on television broadcasting, and chose not to buy the patents for the FM technology.[12] A June 17, 1936, presentation at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) headquarters made headlines nationwide. He played a jazz record over conventional AM radio, then switched to an FM broadcast. “[I]f the audience of 50 engineers had shut their eyes they would have believed the jazz band was in the same room. There were no extraneous sounds,” noted one reporter. He added that several engineers described the invention “as one of the most important radio developments since the first earphone crystal sets were introduced.”[13]

In 1937, Armstrong financed construction of the first FM radio station, W2XMN, a 40 kilowatt broadcaster in Alpine, New Jersey. The signal (at 42.8 MHz) could be heard clearly 100 miles (160 km) away, despite the use of less power than an AM radio station.[14]

RCA began to lobby for a change in the law or FCC regulations that would prevent FM radios from becoming dominant. By June 1945, the RCA had pushed the FCC hard on the allocation of electromagnetic frequencies for the fledgling television industry. Although they denied wrongdoing, David Sarnoff and RCA managed to get the FCC to move the FM radio spectrum from (42-50 MHz), to (88-108 MHz), while getting new low-powered community television stations allocated to a new Channel 1 in the 44-50 MHz range. In fairness to the FCC, the 42-50 MHz band was plagued by frequent tropospheric and E-layer stratospheric propagation which caused distant high powered stations to interfere with each other. The problem becomes even more severe on a cyclical basis when sunspot levels reach a maximum every 11 years and lower VHF band signals below 50 MHz can travel across the Atlantic Ocean or from coast to coast within North America on occasion. Sunspot levels were near their cyclical peak when the FCC reallocated FM in 1945. The 88-108 MHz range is a technically better location for FM broadcast because it is less susceptible to this kind of frequent interference. (Channel 1 eventually had to be deleted as well, with all TV broadcasts licensed at frequencies 54 MHz or higher, and the band is no longer widely used for emergency first responders either, those services having moved mostly to UHF.)

But the immediate economic impact of the shift, whatever its technical merit, was devastating to early FM broadcasters. This single FCC action would render all Armstrong-era FM receivers useless within a short time as stations were moved to the new band, and it also protected both RCA’s AM-radio stronghold and that of the other major competing networks, CBS, ABC and Mutual. Armstrong’s radio network did not survive the shift into the high frequencies and was set back by the FCC decision. This change was strongly supported by AT&T, because loss of FM relaying stations forced radio stations to buy wired links from AT&T.

Furthermore, RCA also claimed invention of FM radio and won its own patent on the technology. A patent fight between RCA and Armstrong ensued. RCA’s momentous victory in the courts left Armstrong unable to claim royalties on any FM receivers, including televisions, sold in the United States. The undermining of the Yankee Network and his costly legal battles brought ruin to Armstrong, by then almost penniless and emotionally distraught. Eventually, after Armstrong’s death, many of the lawsuits were decided or settled in his favor, greatly enriching his estate and heirs—but the decisions came too late for Armstrong himself to enjoy his legal vindication.

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 33, November 9, 2010: Tea Party Movement Expects Republican Party To Balance The Budget By Cutting Spending Now!

Posted on November 9, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Balanced Budgets, Banking, Budget, Communications, Debt, Deficits, Democratic Party, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Issues, Mass Media, Monetary Policy, Money, News, Newspapers, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Republican Party, Society, Taxes, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Economics 101 – It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes!

Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending

Meltzer Says U.S. Economic Programs Have Been `Foolish’

Ron Paul – Dr. Allan Meltzer

No Compromise: Issa, Ryan and Cantor Will Cut Runaway Federal Spending

Eric Cantor Discusses Tax Rates, Ending Earmarks & Cutting Spending On Fox News Sunday

Rand Paul: GOP must consider military spending cuts

Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988)

The tea party movement is expecting the Republican Party to balance the Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012 budgets or face the consequences or fate in 2012 of the big spending Democrats in this past election.

Instead the Republican Party is talking about a Fiscal Year 2008 level of total outlays of about $3 trillion dollars.

This is definitely an improvement over President Obama’s estimated budget deficits exceeding over $1,000 billion in FY 2010 and FY 2011.

However, it still would not come close to balancing the budget in FY 2011 where tax revenues are expected to be about $2,567 billion.

Unfortunately the deficit would be about $400 billion for the total combined on-budget and off-budget.

Refer to the following receipts and outlay estimates at:

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

The total estimated tax revenues for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $2,567 billion and $2,926 billion respectively for the combined on-budget and off-budget.

The total estimated outlays for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $3,834 billion and $3,755 billion respectively for the combined on-budget and off-budget.

The total estimated deficits for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $1,267 billion and $828 billion respectively for combined on-budget and off-budget.

To balance the combined on-budget and off-budget the FY 2011 outlays would need to about the level of Fiscal Year 2005 of $2,472 billion.

To balance the combined on-budget and off-budget the FY 2012 outlays would need to about the level of Fiscal Year 2008 of $2,983 billion.

Either balance the budget or face the consequences in 2012.

Stop dithering.

Start shutting down entire Federal Departments, agencies and programs.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Pass the FairTax and limit future outlays or expenditures for the total on-budget and off-budget to 80% of previous year’s tax revenue from the FairTax.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The remaining 20% of FairTax revenues would go to pay down the debt.

Time for some real change and hope.

Stop spending our future and balance the budget.

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Background Articles and Videos

 

Keynesian Economics vs. Austrian Economics

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

“…The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover – falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics – urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.”2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

It is instructive to compare the American response in this period to that of Japan. In 1920, the Japanese government introduced the fundamentals of a planned economy, with the aim of keeping prices artificially high. According to economist Benjamin Anderson, “The great banks, the concentrated industries, and the government got together, destroyed the freedom of the markets, arrested the decline in commodity prices, and held the Japanese price level high above the receding world level for seven years. During these years Japan endured chronic industrial stagnation and at the end, in 1927, she had a banking crisis of such severity that many great branch bank systems went down, as well as many industries. It was a stupid policy. In the effort to avert losses on inventory representing one year’s production, Japan lost seven years.”3

The U.S., by contrast, allowed its economy to readjust. “In 1920–21,” writes Anderson, “we took our losses, we readjusted our financial structure, we endured our depression, and in August 1921 we started up again. . . . The rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921 was soundly based on a drastic cleaning up of credit weakness, a drastic reduction in the costs of production, and on the free play of private enterprise. It was not based on governmental policy designed to make business good.” The federal government did not do what Keynesian economists ever since have urged it to do: run unbalanced budgets and prime the pump through increased expenditures. Rather, there prevailed the old-fashioned view that government should keep spending and taxation low and reduce the public debt.4 …”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html

Historical Tables

Historical Tables provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2011 or 2015.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

High Taxes and High Budget Deficits
The Hoover–Roosevelt Tax Increases of the 1930s
by Veronique de Rugy, Fiscal Policy Analyst, Cato Institute

“…Conclusion
The tax increases of the 1930s coincided with large
deficits and economic stagnation. While the monetary and
trade policy mistakes of the 1930s are now widely
understood, the tax policy mistakes are less appreciated.
As Congress grapples with today’s budget deficit and
mediocre economic growth, it should look to the tax cuts
of the 1920s for inspiration rather than the failed “budget
balancing with high taxes” approach of the 1930s.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0303-14.pdf

 

Can GOP Shrink Government Spending?

Ron Paul in San Francisco – Amazing Speech!

Republicans roll out “Pledge to America”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman–Capitalism and Freedom–Videos

Milton Friedman On Business–Videos

Milton Friedman On Education–Videos

Milton Friedman On Monetary Policy–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Milton Friedman–Economic Myths–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Paul Krugman–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–How The Economy Was Lost–The War Of The Worlds–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–Peak Jobs–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–A History of Money and Banking in The United States–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The Case Against The Fed–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Calamity of Anti-Capitalism: A Brief American History–Video

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 26, October 15, 2010: Printing More Money (Quantitative Easing) and The Coming Currency War and Decline In The Purchasing Power of The U.S. Dollar–Robbing The American People–Videos

Posted on October 15, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Books, Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Magazines, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Recordings, Society, Sound, Television | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

“True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression.”

“The gold standard alone makes the determination of moneys purchasing power independent of the ambitions and machinations of governments, of dictators, of political parties, and of pressure groups.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Jim Rogers Currency Wars

“IMF Meeting Stokes Fear of Currency War”

Grant Says Quantitative Easing Is Just Money Printing: Video

Global Currency War Brewing

Is The World On The Verge Of A Currency War?

Daniel Rosen: Currency War

IMF Meeting Stokes Fear of Currency War

Webster Tarpley: “There’s a currency war!”

Heller Says `Very Difficult’ for Fed to Boost Growth: Video

Feldstein Predicts Dollar to Weaken, Boosting Exports: Video

Japan cooperates with US on international currency issues – NHK 101010

US House committee approves China currency bill – NHK 100925

US criticizes China, Japan over currency interventions – NHK 100917

Clyde Prestowitz discusses valuation of Chinese currency

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, C. Fred Bergsten Opening Statement

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, Clyde Prestowitz Opening Statement

The Truth About The Economy: Total Collapse

Ron Paul in September 14, 2007

The Federal Reserve System is a banking cartel that benefits the large banks at the expense of the American people.

Cartel economists and so-called experts cannot replace the market by attempting to fix the price of money or the dollar.

Abolish the Federal Reserve System.

Abolish fiat paper currency.

Establish a new United States currency backed by gold.

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 1/3

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 2/3

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 3/3

This is necessary to stop the financing of massive Federal Government deficits by the Federal Reserve that is purchasing U. S. Treasury bills and notes with Federal Reserve Notes by printing money or the monetarization of government debt.

Money printing or quantitative easing decreases the purchasing power of the money supply–debasing of the currency– robbing the American people.

Will the Federal Reserve System and fiat paper money be abolished?

Not any time soon.

The result will first be a longer and deeper recession lasting well into 2013.

In 2013 the Federal Reserve System will be 100 years old.

The Federal Reserves System will celebrate by achieving by then the devaluation of the dollar by 99%.

In other words one dollar in 1913 will be worth 1 cent in 2013.

If this is monetary stability, one wonders what inflation really is.

Time to do away the Federal Reserve System for incompetence.

I do not expect the unemployment rate to fall below 8% for U-3 until 2013 at the earliest.

As unemployment slowly declines in 2011 and 2012, there will be at first a gradual increase in the general price level that will accelerate in 2013.

This will be due the inability of the Federal Reserve to reverse quickly enough its very aggressive expansive monetary policy.

In 2011 and 2012 import prices will rise as the Federal Reserve attempts to devalue the dollar compared with other national currencies in an attempt to expand exports by making them cheaper.

The price of a gallon gasoline in the United States will first rise above $3 in 2011 and $4 in 2012 mainly due to the devaluation of the U.S. dollar.

As Communist China gradually lets the value of its currency rise in value relative to the U.S. dollar, exports from China will rise in price. This means higher prices for goods imported into the U.S. from China.

The decline in the value or purchasing power of the dollar in 2011 and 2012 combined with unemployment rates exceeding 8% will mean further losses for the Democratic Party in 2012 including the Presidency.

The American people are rightfully mad as hell at the ruling class and political elites in Washington D.C.

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 1

 

 

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 2

 

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 3

 

Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve and Government Deficit Spending

The Gold Standard in Theory and Myth by Joseph Salerno

“The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments.”

“Inflationism, however, is not an isolated phenomenon. It is only one piece in the total framework of politico-economic and socio-philosophical ideas of our time. Just as the sound money policy of gold standard advocates went hand in hand with liberalism, free trade, capitalism and peace, so is inflationism part and parcel of imperialism, militarism, protectionism, statism and socialism.”

~Ludwig von Mises

9. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks

Millions of dollars
Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from
consolidation
Wednesday
Oct 6, 2010
Change since
Wednesday
Sep 29, 2010
Wednesday
Oct 7, 2009
Assets  
Gold certificate account   11,037 0 0
Special drawing rights certificate account   5,200 0 0
Coin   2,114 + 3 + 124
Securities, repurchase agreements, term auction
credit, and other loans
  2,101,199 + 7,113 + 216,329
Securities held outright 1   2,051,716 + 7,403 + 456,429
U.S. Treasury securities   819,072 + 7,403 + 49,887
Bills 2   18,423 0 0
Notes and bonds, nominal 2   752,832 + 7,390 + 52,364
Notes and bonds, inflation-indexed 2   42,318 0 – 2,270
Inflation compensation 3   5,499 + 13 – 207
Federal agency debt securities 2   154,105 0 + 20,294
Mortgage-backed securities 4   1,078,539 0 + 386,248
Repurchase agreements 5   0 0 0
Term auction credit   0 0 – 178,379
Other loans   49,483 – 290 – 61,721
Net portfolio holdings of Commercial Paper
Funding Facility LLC 6
  0 0 – 41,059
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC 7   28,510 + 40 + 2,206
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC 8   15,674 – 201 + 1,213
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III LLC 9   22,782 – 258 + 2,616
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC 10   601 0 + 601
Preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO
Holdings LLC 11
  26,057 + 324 + 26,057
Items in process of collection (84) 463 + 98 + 310
Bank premises   2,222 – 7 + 1
Central bank liquidity swaps 12   61 0 – 49,770
Other assets 13   95,313 + 2,248 + 11,389
 
Total assets (84) 2,311,231 + 9,358 + 170,016

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table. 9. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks (continued)

Millions of dollars
Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from
consolidation
Wednesday
Oct 6, 2010
Change since
Wednesday
Sep 29, 2010
Wednesday
Oct 7, 2009
Liabilities
Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank holdings 918,609 + 4,849 + 42,489
Reverse repurchase agreements 14 64,440 – 2,930 + 1,540
Deposits (0) 1,253,413 + 6,593 + 113,645
Term deposits held by depository institutions 2,119 0 + 2,119
Other deposits held by depository institutions 1,000,014 + 15,875 + 33,477
U.S. Treasury, general account 49,530 – 8,299 + 18,525
U.S. Treasury, supplementary financing account 199,962 + 1 + 70,006
Foreign official 1,345 – 1,066 – 540
Other (0) 444 + 84 – 9,940
Deferred availability cash items (84) 2,598 + 410 – 182
Other liabilities and accrued dividends 15 15,029 + 91 + 6,468
Total liabilities (84) 2,254,089 + 9,014 + 163,961
Capital accounts
Capital paid in 26,687 + 1 + 1,798
Surplus 25,881 + 6 + 4,500
Other capital accounts 4,575 + 338 – 242
Total capital 57,142 + 344 + 6,055

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1. Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight and term securities lending facilities; refer to table 1A.

2.Face value of the securities.

3. Compensation that adjusts for the effect of inflation on the original face value of inflation-indexed securities.

4. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. Current face value of the securities, which is the remaining principal balance of the underlying mortgages.

5.Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities.

6. Includes the book value of the commercial paper, net of amortized costs and related fees, and other investments held by the Commercial Paper Funding Facility LLC.

7. Refer to table 4 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

8. Refer to table 5 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

9. Refer to table 6 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

10. Refer to table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

11. Refer to table 8.

12. Dollar value of foreign currency held under these agreements valued at the exchange rate to be used when the foreign currency is returned to the foreign central bank. This exchange rate equals the market exchange rate used when the foreign currency was acquired from the foreign central bank.

13. Includes other assets denominated in foreign currencies, which are revalued daily at market exchange rates, accrued dividends on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s (FRBNY) preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC, and the fair value adjustment to credit extended by the FRBNY to eligible borrowers through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility.

14. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, federal agency debt securities, and mortgage-backed securities.

15. Includes the liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II LLC, Maiden Lane III LLC, and TALF LLC to entities other than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, including liabilities that have recourse only to the portfolio holdings of these LLCs. Refer to table 4 through table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee September 21, 2010″…At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee voted to authorize and direct the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, until it was instructed otherwise, to execute transactions in the System Account in accordance with the following domestic policy directive:

“The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee directs the Desk to maintain the total face value of domestic securities held in the System Open Market Account at approximately $2 trillion by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities. The System Open Market Account Manager and the Secretary will keep the Committee informed of ongoing developments regarding the System’s balance sheet that could affect the attainment over time of the Committee’s objectives of maximum employment and price stability.”

The vote encompassed approval of the statement below to be released at 2:15 p.m.:

“Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in August indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising, though less rapidly than earlier in the year, while investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak. Employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts are at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract, but at a reduced rate in recent months. The Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be modest in the near term.Measures of underlying inflation are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability. With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to remain subdued for some time before rising to levels the Committee considers consistent with its mandate.The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period. The Committee also will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings.The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.”

Voting for this action: Ben Bernanke, William C. Dudley, James Bullard, Elizabeth Duke, Sandra Pianalto, Eric Rosengren, Daniel K. Tarullo, and Kevin Warsh.Voting against this action: Thomas M. Hoenig.Mr. Hoenig dissented, emphasizing that the economy was entering the second year of moderate recovery and that, while the zero interest rate policy and “extended period” language were appropriate during the crisis and its immediate aftermath, they were no longer appropriate with the recovery under way. Mr. Hoenig also emphasized that, in his view, the current high levels of unemployment were not caused by high interest rates but by an extended period of exceptionally low rates earlier in the decade that contributed to the housing bubble and subsequent collapse and recession. He believed that holding rates artificially low would invite the development of new imbalances and undermine long-run growth. He would prefer removing the “extended period” language and thereafter moving the federal funds rate upward, consistent with his views at past meetings that it approach 1 percent, before pausing to determine what further policy actions were needed. Also, given current economic and financial conditions, Mr. Hoenig did not believe that continuing to reinvest principal payments from SOMA securities holdings was required to support the Committee’s policy objectives.It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday-Wednesday, November 2-3, 2010. The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. on September 21, 2010. …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20100921.htm

Background Articles and Videos

Marc-Faber– FedsPrinting to Create Final Crisis 8-3-2010

Quantitative easing

Marc Faber Sees Fed Introducing `Massive’ Quantitative Easing

Ron Paul: If You Care About The Poor You Have To Look At Monetary Policy

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

Monetary Policy, Deflation, And Quantitative Easing

“…Aren’t the excess bank reserves inflationary?

Potentially yes, but currently no. Even though banks are earning a meager 25 basis points on their reserves, that is not sufficient incentive to keep large quantities of excess reserves uninvested or unloaned. As they were in the mid-1930s, massive excess reserves are the result of banker fear and uncertainty. The banking system has been saved, but it hasn’t been made whole yet. Bankers continue to worry about reserve levels and liquidity levels and capital levels. They are willing to lend, but only very conservatively to credit-worthy borrowers. Also, much of the slowdown in bank lending comes from low demand for loans by highly qualified borrowers.

The idea that the excess reserves held on banks’ balance sheets should be “mopped up” to prevent them being used in inflationary ways later is a very dangerous idea. They are there voluntarily because bankers feel they are needed. To remove them would cause further bank retrenchment, as it did in the 1930s when the Fed decided to “mop up” the excess reserves of that time.

As the economy and confidence improves, banks will begin using their excess reserves more aggressively. At that point, the Fed will have to be very careful not to stifle that desirable activity on the one hand or let it get out of hand and become inflationary on the other hand. Since they have lots of good, two-handed economists, I think they can pull it off. ..”

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/30/monetary-policy-deflation-and-quantitative-easing/

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

If you work to earn money you need to watch this

Quantitative Easing

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system. This policy is usually invoked when the normal methods to control the money supply have failed, i.e the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank implements QE by first crediting its own account with money it creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money, and thus hopefully induce a stimulation of the economy, by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system.

Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to sit on the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone during the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, since the programme is suitable for economies where the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

Concept

Ordinarily, the central bank uses its control of interest rates, or sometimes reserve requirements, to indirectly influence the supply of money.[1] In some situations, such as very low inflation or deflation, setting a low interest rate is not enough to maintain the level of money supply desired by the central bank, and so quantitative easing is employed to further boost the amount of money in the financial system.[1] This is often considered a “last resort” to increase the money supply.[4][5] The first step is for the bank to create more money ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) by crediting its own account. It can then use these funds to buy investments like government bonds from financial firms such as banks, insurance companies and pension funds,[1] in a process known as “monetising the debt“.

For example, in introducing its QE programme, the Bank of England bought gilts from financial institutions, along with a smaller amount of relatively high-quality debt issued by private companies.[6] The banks, insurance companies and pension funds can then use the money they have received for lending or even to buy back more bonds from the bank. The central bank can also lend the new money to private banks or buy assets from banks in exchange for currency.[citation needed] These have the effect of depressing interest yields on government bonds and similar investments, making it cheaper for business to raise capital.[7] Another side effect is that investors will switch to other investments, such as shares, boosting their price and thus creating the illusion of increasing wealth in the economy.[6] QE can reduce interbank overnight interest rates, and thereby encourage banks to loan money to higher interest-paying and financially weaker bodies.

More specifically, the lending undertaken by commercial banks is subject to fractional-reserve banking: they are subject to a regulatory reserve requirement, which requires them to keep a percentage of deposits in “reserve”,[citation needed]: these can only be used to settle transactions between them and the central bank.[7] The remainder, called “excess reserves”, can (but does not have to be) be used as a basis for lending. When, under QE, a central bank buys from an institution, the institution’s bank account is credited directly and their bank gains reserves.[6] The increase in deposits from the quantitative easing process causes an excess in reserves and private banks can then, if they wish, create even more new money out of “thin air” by increasing debt (lending) through a process known as deposit multiplication and thus increase the country’s money supply. The reserve requirement limits the amount of new money. For example a 10% reserve requirement means that for every $10,000 created by quantitative easing the total new money created is potentially $100,000. The US Federal Reserve‘s now out-of-print booklet Modern Money Mechanics explains the process.

A state must be in control of its own currency and monetary policy if it is to unilaterally employ quantitative easing. Countries in the eurozone (for example) cannot unilaterally use this policy tool, but must rely on the European Central Bank to implement it.[citation needed] There may also be other policy considerations. For example, under Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union[7] and later the Maastricht Treaty, EU member states are not allowed to finance their public deficits (debts) by simply printing the money required to fill the hole, as happened, for example, in Weimar Germany and more recently in Zimbabwe.[1] Banks using QE, such as the Bank of England, have argued that they are increasing the supply of money not to fund government debt but to prevent deflation, and will choose the financial products they buy accordingly, for example, by buying government bonds not straight from the government, but in secondary markets.[1][7]

HistoryQuantitative easing was used unsuccessfully[8] by the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to fight domestic deflation in the early 2000s.[9] During the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, policies announced by the US Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke to counter the effects of the crisis are a form of quantitative easing. Its balance sheet expanded dramatically by adding new assets and new liabilities without “sterilizing” these by corresponding subtractions. In the same period the United Kingdom used quantitative easing as an additional arm of its monetary policy in order to alleviate its financial crisis.[10][11][12]

The European Central Bank (ECB) has used 12-month long-term refinancing operations (a form of quantitative easing without referring to it as such) through a process of expanding the assets that banks can use as collateral that can be posted to the ECB in return for Euros. This process has led to bonds being “structured for the ECB”[13]. By comparison the other central banks were very restrictive in terms of the collateral they accept: the US Federal Reserve used to accept primarily treasuries (in the first half of 2009 it bought almost any relatively safe dollar-denominated securities); the Bank of England applied a large haircut.

In Japan’s case, the BOJ had been maintaining short-term interest rates at close to their minimum attainable zero values since 1999. With quantitative easing, it flooded commercial banks with excess liquidity to promote private lending, leaving them with large stocks of excess reserves, and therefore little risk of a liquidity shortage.[14] The BOJ accomplished this by buying more government bonds than would be required to set the interest rate to zero. It also bought asset-backed securities and equities, and extended the terms of its commercial paper purchasing operation.[15]

RisksQuantitative easing is seen as a risky strategy that could trigger higher inflation than desired or even hyperinflation if it is improperly used and too much money is created.

Quantitative easing runs the risk of going too far. An increase in money supply to a system has an inflationary effect by diluting the value of a unit of currency. People who have saved money will find it is devalued by inflation; this combined with the associated low interest rates will put people who rely on their savings in difficulty. If devaluation of a currency is seen externally to the country it can affect the international credit rating of the country which in turn can lower the likelihood of foreign investment. Like old-fashioned money printing, Zimbabwe suffered an extreme case of a process that has the same risks as quantitative easing, printing money, making its currency virtually worthless.[1]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Federal Open Market Committee

“…About the FOMCThe term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.

Structure of the FOMC

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.For more detail on the FOMC and monetary policy, see section 2 of the brochure on the structure of the Federal Reserve System and chapter 2 of Purposes & Functions of the Federal Reserve System.

2010 Members of the FOMC

  • Members
    • Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
    • William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
    • James Bullard, St. Louis
    • Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
    • Thomas M. Hoenig, Kansas City
    • Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
    • Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
    • Eric S. Rosengren, Boston
    • Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
    • Kevin M. Warsh, Board of Governors
    • Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm

FEDERAL RESERVE statistical release
H.4.1
Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and
Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks

Why Chinese Currency Manipulation Is America’s Fault by: Ian Fletcher April 15, 2010

“…Unfortunately, the token appreciation that is probably now in store won’t help very much. For one thing, Beijing has played this game before. China first started diversifying its currency reserves away from the dollar (which weakens currency manipulation) in July 2005, and from then until July 2008 allowed the yuan to rise from 8.28 to the dollar to 6.83, where it has since been held nearly steady. But this appreciation, while showcased by China, was purely nominal; after adjusting for inflation, the change was far smaller: about two percent.

How does China manipulate its currency? Mainly by preventing its exporters from using the dollars they earn as they wish. Instead, they are required to swap them for domestic currency at China’s central bank, which then “sterilizes” them by spending them on U.S. Treasury securities (and increasingly other, higher-yielding, investments) rather than U.S. goods. As a result, the price of dollars is propped up — which means the price of yuan is pushed down — by a demand for dollars which doesn’t involve buying American exports.

The amounts involved are astronomical: as of 2008, China’s accumulated dollar-denominated holdings amounted to $1.7 trillion, an astonishing 40 percent of China’s GDP. The China Currency Coalition estimated in 2005 that the yuan was undervalued by 40 percent; past scholarly estimates have ranged from 10 to 75 percent.

Why is this America’s fault? Because China’s currency is manipulated relative to our own only because we permit it, as there is no law requiring us to sell China our bonds and other assets. We could, in fact, end this manipulation at will. All we would need to do is bar China’s purchases, or just tax them to death.

This would be neither an extreme nor an unprecedented move. It is roughly what the Swiss did in 1972, when economic troubles elsewhere in the world generated an excessive flow of money seeking refuge in Swiss franc-denominated assets. This drove up the value of the franc and threatened to make Swiss manufacturing internationally uncompetitive. To prevent this, the Swiss government imposed a number of measures to dampen foreign investment demand for francs, including a ban on the sale of franc-denominated bonds, securities, and real estate to foreigners. Problem solved. (It did not even damage Switzerland’s standing as an international financial center, a key worry at the time.) …”

“…So the real underlying problem is that America doesn’t generate enough savings on its own to meet its voracious appetite for borrowing. China’s savings rate, thanks to deliberate suppression by the Chinese government of its people’s opportunities to spend what they earn, is an astonishing 50 percent. Ours was negative four percent in the last Federal Reserve report on the subject. We are—Oh, how Mao would have loved this!—decadent. …”

http://seekingalpha.com/article/198825-why-chinese-currency-manipulation-is-americas-fault


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 24, October 5, 2010: President Obama’s Massive Tax Hikes Will Wreck The Economy, Destroy More Jobs and Kill The American Dream–Stop Stupidity, Spending, and Socialism!–Videos

Posted on October 5, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Mass Media, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Obama vs. JFK on taxes

Richard Rahn: Double-Dip Recession Imminent, If Bush Tax Cuts Arent Renewed

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?

Tax Year 2007

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$410,096

40.42

Top 5%

$160,041

60.63

Top 10%

$113,018

71.22

Top 25%

$66,532

86.59

Top 50%

$32,879

97.11

Bottom 50%

<$32,879

2.89

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains – “For Purposes of Fairness”

Dan Mitchell discusses the Bush Tax Cuts

Dan Mitchell on Taxes

Glenn Beck Part 1 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Glenn Beck Part 2 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Glenn Beck Part 3 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Dan Mitchell–Videos

It is not the Federal Government’s money, it is the money or income of the American people.

President Obama wants to increase taxes on the top 3% of U.S. tax payers that currently pay over 50% of all taxes and create most new jobs.

By increasing taxes on the wealth and job creators–small and medium size businesses, the Federal Government is destroying jobs in the private business sector to pay for more government spending.

The Federal Government should stop spending and close down permanently entire Federal Departments and agencies.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Instead, President Obama is expanding the Federal Government while those in the private sector cannot find jobs or are losing their jobs.

Cutting spending by closing down whole departments and agencies is what needs to done–not borrowing or taxing the American people to pay a monster Federal Government.

President Obama’s economic policies have been a disaster.

Increasing taxes on the job creators when there are over 25,000,000 Americans looking for a full time jobs is simply crazy and irresponsible.

How dare President Obama do this?

He actually believes he can lie to you and you are stupid and not paying attention.

On November 2, 2010 vote all the Democrats out of office and do the same in November 2012.

Send a message to President Obama by giving the Republicans majorities in the House and Senate and in the state houses and governor offices.

BAAAMM!!—Rush Limbaugh Calls Obama a ‘Jackass’, an ‘Economic Illiterate’ 

Stop stupidity.

Stop spending.

Stop socialism.

Presidents Kennedy and Bush tax cuts were right.

President Obama and Keynes stimulus spending were wrong.

Free markets and small government produce economic growth, prosperity and job creation.

Free Markets and Small Government Produce Prosperity

Background Articles and Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

Glenn Beck On James Madison–The Father Of The United States Constitution–Videos

Glenn Beck On Founding Father Benjamin Franklin–Videos

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Glenn Beck–A Forgotten Founding Father–George Whitefield–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

The Black Founding Fathers–Videos

The Founding Mothers–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

Glenn Beck Faith, Hope, Charity and Honor–Videos

How Many Americans Will Attend The Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., Saturday, August 28, 2010? Answer? 1 to 3 Million!

Glenn Beck Previews The Restoring Honor Rally–Saturday, August 28, 2010–The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C—Videos

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Glenn Beck On Revolutionary Leaders–Jesus, Gandhi, King–Videos

Glenn Beck–Government Intervention In The Economy Is The Problem!–Videos

Glenn Beck’s Message And Thoughts About The Restoring Honor Rally–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 1–Economic Transformation–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 2–On Radicals Surrounding Barack Obama–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 3–Revisionist American History–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 4–Message Control–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 5–On Civil Rights and The Rights

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

News Journal: Number 11, September 17, 2010:In Your Heart You Know Christine O’Donnell Is Right and Karl Rove Is Wrong

Posted on September 17, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Issues, Law, Magazines, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , |

Freedom is the Only Solution

Rove Tells A Disagreeing Hannity: We Can’t Win With O’Donnell

Conservative Christine O’Donnell Makes Her Case Against RINO Mike Castle at RIght Online

Christine O’Donnell on socialismin America

Christine O’Donnell on Your World with Cavuto – September 2, 2010

Rush Limbaugh on Christine O’Donnell

Mark Levin interviews Christine O’Donnell for US Senate in Delaware

I am first and foremost a movement conservative of the traditional libertarian wing.

I would describe my political philosophy as classical liberal or what in America is called libertarian.

I vote for the candidate that comes closest to my own political philosophy and ignore party labels.

Today I consider myself an independent.

I have simply given up on the Republican Party for they have not limited the size and scope of government and have repeatedly engaged in government intervention both domestically and abroad.

The Democratic Party is a collectivist/statist party that favors heavy government intervention into the lives of the American people.

The Republican Party is also a collective/statist party that favors significant government intervention into the lives of the American people and the citizens of other countries as well–nation building.

Neither party will permanently close ten Federal Department that need to be shut down.

Neither party will support a FairTax, a national consumption tax to replace Federal income, payroll, gift and estate taxes.

Neither party will vigorously support immigration law enforcement and telling illegal aliens to please go home or you and your family will be deported.

Neither party will make both Social Security and Medicare, an individually controlled and owned account and insurance.

Neither party will pay down the National Debt and reduce unfunded liabilities.

Why? Both parties are populated with professional politicians more interested in holding office than in doing what is right and what the people are demanding.

The Republican Party at the local, state, and national level is deeply penetrated with progressives.

More and more Americans consider both political parties as damaged goods or brands.

Karl Rove is part of the problem. The reason many conservatives left the Republican Party were President Bush’s refusal to limit government spending by vetoing bills, comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty for illegal aliens, and his slowness in changing strategy and military commanders in the “war on terrorism” in Iraq.

The Republicans deserved to lose in both 2006 and 2008.

Keeping running progressive Republicans and the Republican Party will be the third-party.

The Democratic Party under the leadership of Barack Obama is quickly becoming a third-party.

Let the Democratic Party and Republican parties destroy themselvesjust as they wrecked the American economy.

A plaque on both parties for abandoning their principles for power.

Yes, Obama is five times worse but neither Bush nor Obama will ever get my vote nor will any candidate that is a progressive or socialist.

Let the people of Delaware decides whether they want a person running as a conservative or a progressive Republican.

If they want another Biden let them have one.

Rove better stop talking and start listening.

Defeat progressive liberals of both parties.

In your heart you know she is right!

Background Articles and Videos

Goldwater 1964 Presidential TV Spot featuring Raymond Massey

Barry Goldwater on economic planning

Barry Goldwater Speech

Extremism In The Defense Of Liberty Is No Vice

Reagan – A Time For Choosing

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 08, August 6, 2010: Bush Obama Depression (BOD) Progressively Worsens With Over 25 Million Unemployed Americans–No Jobs Recovery On The Economic Time Horizon!–Videos

Posted on August 6, 2010. Filed under: Advertising, Issues, Mass Media, News, Politics, Print Media, Society | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Dan Mitchell – The Bush/Obama Years

The Road Ahead: Unemployment, Poverty and the Recession

The Unemployment Game Show: Are You *Really* Unemployed? – From Mint.com

Employment Level

During the last year of the Bush Administration the employment level fell from 146,421,00 in January 2008 to 142,221,00 or about a 4.2 million decline year to year in the number of employed persons in the United States.

During the first year of the Obama Administration the employment level fell from 142,221,00 in January 2009 to 138,333,00 in January 2010 or about 3.9 million decline year to year in the number of employed person in the United States.

From the start of recession/depression in December 2007 through July 2010, the employment level fell from 146,173,00 in December 2007 to 138,960,000 in July 2010 or about a 7.2 million decline in the last 31 months.

Series Id:           LNS12000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614  
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047  
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426  
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411  
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125  
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752  
2006 143142(1) 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914  
2007 146032(1) 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173  
2008 146421(1) 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188  
2009 142221(1) 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792  
2010 138333(1) 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960            
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force

Every month about 150,000 new entrants into the labor force are seeking employment.

Thus a minimum of about 150,000 new jobs is needed each month to keep the unemployment from rising.

A .1% decline in the unemployment requires about a 300,000 new jobs to be created during a month.

Unfortunately the United States has been adding about 100,000 new jobs in 2010.

This is not a jobs recovery but a jobs recession.

The Civilian Labor Force hit a high of 154,849,000 in October 2008 or about 155 million under the Bush Administration.

The Civilian Labor Force hit a high of 154,956 in May 2009 or about 155 million under the Obama Administration.

If the economy had been growing since October 2008 instead of declining the Civilian Labor Force through July 2010 would be about 160 million and not 154 million.

Both the stimulus spending of Presidents Bush and Obama have been abject failures in growing the economy and the Civilian Labor Force.

The Civilian Labor Force is again declining.

Series Id:           LNS11000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248  
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305  
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066  
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729  
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059  
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030  
2006 150201(1) 150629 150839 150915 151085 151368 151383 151729 151650 152020 152360 152698  
2007 153117(1) 152941 153093 152531 152717 153045 153039 152781 153393 153158 153767 153869  
2008 154048(1) 153600 153966 153936 154420 154327 154410 154696 154590 154849 154524 154587  
2009 154140(1) 154401 154164 154718 154956 154759 154351 154426 153927 153854 153720 153059  
2010 153170(1) 153512 153910 154715 154393 153741 153560            
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

While the labor force participation rate varies from month, the rate is usually around 66% plus or minus 1%. and usually rises in a growing economy or boom and falls in a declining economy or bust.

The labor force participation rate has been falling for the last three months and has now hit a new low of 64.6% which equals the past low in December of 2009.

This reflects the fact that those seeking employment for many months are so discouraged that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics they have withdrawn from participation in the labor market.

A more accurate interpretation is the discouraged workers cannot find a job after applying for hundreds of jobs where hundreds of unemployed have also applied for the one job opening.

 
Series Id:           LNS11300000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0  
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7  
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3  
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9  
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9  
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0  
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4  
2007 66.4 66.3 66.3 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0  
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.2 66.1 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.8 65.8  
2009 65.7 65.7 65.6 65.8 65.8 65.7 65.4 65.4 65.1 65.0 64.9 64.6  
2010 64.7 64.8 64.9 65.2 65.0 64.7 64.6            

Unemployment Rate U-3

When President George Bush left office the official unemployment rate measured by U-3 was at 7.7%.

Since President Barack Obama entered office the official unemployment rate measured by U-3 has risen from 8.2% in February to a peak of 10.1% in October 2009 back down to a July 2010 unemployment rate of 9.5%.

I fully expect the official unemployment to again rise above 10% in the next six months due to the continuing fiscal economic policies of President Obama.

Increased Federal Government spending and deficits have place a heavy weight or drag on the economy.

Series Id:           LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9  
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7  
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0  
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7  
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4  
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9  
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4  
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0  
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4  
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0  
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5            

Unemployment Level

The unemployment level of 14,599,000 persons for July 2010 still exceeds the worse month of unemployment in the Great Depression, March 1933 of about 13 million.

While the unemployment rate of 9.5% is usually announced on news casts, it surprising how few times any mention is made of the actual number of unemployed.

Keep in mind the official unemployment of 9.5% as measured by U-6 actually grossly understates the actual number of unemployed because it excludes the marginally attached workers and those discouraged from trying to find a job and failing to do so.

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634  
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258  
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640  
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317  
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934  
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279  
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784  
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696  
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400  
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267  
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599            

Total Unemployed Rate U-6

The real or total unemployment rate as measured by U-6 was 16.5% in July unchanged from June.

When President George Bush left office the real or total unemployment rate as measured by U-6 was 14.0%.

Since President Barack Obama entered office the total unemployment rate as measured by U-6 has risen from 15.0% in February to a peak of 17.4% in October 2009 back down to a July 2010 total unemployment rate of 16.5%.

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9  
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6  
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8  
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8  
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2  
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6  
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.0  
2007 8.3 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.8  
2008 9.1 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.7 10.0 10.5 10.9 11.2 11.9 12.8 13.7  
2009 14.0 15.0 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.4 16.8 17.0 17.4 17.2 17.3  
2010 16.5 16.8 16.9 17.1 16.6 16.5 16.5

A real or total unemployment rate of 16.5% multiplied by the current total labor force is 153,560,00 means there are at least 25,337,400.

Several economist believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics statistics on unemployment rate understands the actual rate of unemployment.

Using an alternative unemployment rate of 20% multiplied by the current civilian labor force of about 153,560,00 means there are over 30 million Americans currently unemployed:

Economist John Williams on Real Unemployment Rate

Both President Bush’s and Obama’s economic stimulus packages have been a complete failure in creating jobs and wealth.

Expect the official unemployment rate measured by U-3 to exceed 10% and the real total unemployment rate measure by U-6 to exceed 17% over much of 2011.

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Obama’s So-Called Stimulus: Good For Government, Bad For the Economy

Saltsman Says Minimum Wage Leads to Teen Employment Drop: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcgoiemEBY

Background Articles and Videos

News Update: US Unemployment Rate Holds at 9.5%, 71,000 Jobs Added in June

Unemployment Statistics – John Williams on Economics 101

Jobs Picture Worsens With 131,000 Losses; 9.5% Rate

“…Non-farm payrolls fell 131,000 the Labor Department said on Friday as temporary jobs to conduct the decennial census dropped by 143,000.

Private employment, considered a better gauge of labor market health, rose 71,000 after increasing 31,000 in June. In addition, the government revised payrolls for May and June to show 97,000 fewer jobs than previously reported.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast overall employment falling 65,000 and private-sector hiring increasing 90,000.

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent in July for a second straight month, just below market expectations for a rise to 9.6 percent. The steady jobless rate largely reflected a drop in the labor force as discouraged workers gave up the search for jobs. …”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38590746

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-10-1076 until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, August 6, 2010 Technical information: Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JULY 2010 Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 131,000 in July, and the unem- ployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis- tics reported today. Federal government employment fell, as 143,000 temporary workers hired for the decennial census completed their work. Private-sector payroll employment edged up by 71,000. Household Survey Data Both the number of unemployed persons, at 14.6 million, and the unemployment rate, at 9.5 percent, were unchanged in July. (See table A-1.) Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult men (9.7 per- cent), adult women (7.9 percent), teenagers (26.1 percent), whites (8.6 per- cent), blacks (15.6 percent), and Hispanics (12.1 percent) showed little or no change in July. The jobless rate for Asians was 8.2 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.) In July, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed at 6.6 million. These individuals made up 44.9 per- cent of unemployed persons. (See table A-12.) The civilian labor force participation rate (64.6 percent) and the employment- population ratio (58.4 percent) were essentially unchanged in July; however, these measures have declined by 0.6 percentage point and 0.4 point, respec- tively, since April. (See table A-1.) The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes re- ferred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged over the month at 8.5 million but has declined by 623,000 since April. These in- dividuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.) About 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in July, an increase of 340,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally ad- justed.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were avail- able for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.) Among the marginally attached, there were 1.2 million discouraged workers in July, up by 389,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally ad- justed.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsi- bilities. (See table A-16.) Establishment Survey Data Total nonfarm payroll employment decreased by 131,000 in July, reflecting the departure of 143,000 temporary Census 2010 workers from federal government pay- rolls. Total private employment edged up over the month (+71,000). Thus far this year, private sector employment has increased by 630,000, with about two-thirds of the gain occurring in March and April. (See table B-1.) Manufacturing employment increased by 36,000 over the month. Motor vehicles and parts had fewer seasonal layoffs than normal for July, contributing to a season- ally adjusted employment increase of 21,000. The industry had added 32,000 jobs in the first 6 months of the year. In July, employment in fabricated metals rose by 9,000. Manufacturing employment has expanded by 183,000 since December 2009. Health care added 27,000 jobs in July. Over the past 12 months, health care em- ployment has risen by 231,000. In July, employment in transportation and warehousing edged up by 12,000. Since a recent low in February, transportation and warehousing has added 56,000 jobs. Mining employment rose by 7,000 in July, with the gain concentrated in support activities for mining. Mining has added 63,000 jobs since October 2009. Employment in professional and business services was little changed (-13,000) in July. The number of jobs in temporary help services showed little movement (-6,000) over the month. Employment in financial activities continued to trend down in July, with a decline of 17,000. So far this year, monthly job losses in the industry have averaged 12,000, compared with an average monthly job loss of 29,000 for all of 2009. Construction employment changed little (-11,000) in July; 10,000 construction workers were off payrolls due to strike activity. Employment in other private-sector industries, including wholesale trade, re- tail trade, information, and leisure and hospitality showed little change in July. Government employment fell by 202,000 in July, largely reflecting the loss of 143,000 temporary workers hired for Census 2010. Employment in both state and local governments edged down over the month. In July, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 34.2 hours. The manufacturing workweek for all em- ployees increased by 0.1 hour to 40.1 hours, following a decrease of 0.5 hour in June. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 33.5 hours in July. (See tables B-2 and B-7.) Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 4 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $22.59 in July. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 1.8 percent. In July, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $19.04. (See tables B-3 and B-8.) The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised from +433,000 to +432,000, and the change for June was revised from -125,000 to -221,000. __________ The Employment Situation for August is scheduled to be released on Friday, September 3, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 02–July 18, 2010 Unemployment Benefit Extension and Raising Taxes

Posted on August 3, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Issues, Law, News, Politics, Radio, Regulations, Television, Web | Tags: , , , |

BREAKING NEWS Politics News Economy Jobs President Obama Wants to Extend Unemployment Benefits

Bill O’Reilly: Extension of unemployment being blocked by GOP –

 

“Who should pay?”

Paul Ryan on Washington’s Borrow and Spend Spree

 

Democrats Move to Extend Unemployment Benefits as Goodwin Casts First Vote

Hatch CNBC Unemployment Benefits

Rob Shapiro on Fox News re Unemployment Benefits

Daniel J. Mitchell talks unemployment benefit extensions on CNN Newsroom

http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=1382

 

Both political parties support the extension of unemployment benefit to 99 weeks or almost two years.

The Republicans have recommended that the  unspent stimulus package funds be used to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits instead of funding the benefits by issuing more Federal Government debt.

Should the Democratic Party let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, the result will be a tax increase for those who pay taxes and create most of the jobs, namely small and middle size business.

This will only prolong the current recession/depression and increase those Americans who are unemployed.

When the first extension to unemployment benefits was passed last November, President Obama stated they were fully paid for and as a result did not require deficit spending and incurring more debt to pay for the benefits.

Now upwards of $30 billion of new debt must be issued to pay for this new extension of unemployment benefits.

Paul Ryan is right, the Democrats are out of controll in spending money and increasing deficits and the national debt.

This is simply irresponsible and the American people are waking up and will throw them out of office.

 Background Articles and Videos

The Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue 

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

 

Pres. Obama regarding Unemployment and Economy

Keynesian Economics is a Failure – Why is Obama trying it again? Repeal the Stimulus Package

Obama Changes Tune on Paying for Unemployment Benefits Extension

Posted by Mark Knoller

“…In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.  

That’s the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts. 

The White House dismissed GOP concerns as partisan game-playing. 

In two speeches over the last week, Mr. Obama argued that in the past, presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is: an emergency expenditure. 

“Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that,” he said.

He portrayed Republicans as hypocrites for demanding that jobless benefits be paid for but not applying the same standard to their call for an extension of Bush Administration tax cuts that will expire this year. 

“So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed,” the president said last Saturday in his radio/internet address. 

But Republicans were quick to remind Mr. Obama what he said after signing a previous extension of unemployment benefits on November 6th of last year. 

“Now, it’s important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible,” he said. 

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so. 

Asked about the contradiction, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he needed to examine what Mr. Obama said last November and would get back to this reporter. He didn’t. …”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011420-503544.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...