1)      Citigroup posted profits for the first two months of 2009.

2)      Retails sales dropped less than expected.

3)      Jobless claims rose and we have a record number of people collecting unemployment benefits.

Let's consider these points together with the NY stock market. Twice as many people as a year ago are on the unemployment rolls, but companies are doing better, ergo the market is recovering somewhat. Is this healthy for society?

Current self-styled conservatives should not be called that, but rather reactionaries, according to Umberto Eco. They are more interested in backward movement than staying still, than standing pat on proven systems. Instead, they want to return to an imagined Golden Age, that was in fact a Gilded Age, not the solid gold of a fundamentally wealthy society, but the thin gold coating on the base metal substrate of undervalued labor.

Consider the hypocrisy of Republican congressmen who rail about earmarks while utilizing them. If pressed they will say it's legal so why can't they use the system? They agree it should go, and revile opposition use, but as long as it's still in use they will partake. Similarly, in business and finance, the practices of the powerful are to speak loudly about morality but to act in utterly selfish ways. It is only business, nothing personal, that they charge you a $30 late fee on a $40 balance. It Is OK for them to dodge prescription laws, or evade taxes, or send money offshore, or pollute the water, or to use energy at large rates and make it more expensive for the rest. But we have to follow the rules, and even more, we have to act to protect lenders from unreliable people, (us), when they didn't do their homework. It is our fault they were idiots, apparently. (See, Iceland.)

I will agree it is our collective fault, if we make sure that definition includes the dolts who believed GOP propaganda and elected them repeatedly. It is our fault if we mean "our" media, who like to rub shoulders with the powerful and therefore resist asking difficult questions. It is our fault to the extent that it rests within us, not in the stars, dear Brutus.

But when the reactionaries have had their way for the better part of 20 years, and a total free-for-all in the last 8, it's their fault.

Can we skip the usual slogans, like "A poor person never gave anyone a job"? (Patently false, but we will disregard the pensioner using his Social Security to hire the contractor, the real-estate broker, the moving company, the doctor.) The businessman who hires someone is not doing it because he's a softy (see, late fees, foreclosures), but because he needs more people making stuff he's selling, so he can sell more. He won't hire someone because they need a job, or to make things easier for the existing labor force, or even to help the local community's tax base. He will not make foolish business decisions, we assume. So can we agree that hiring occurs by necessity, and not because a businessman has a large personal income or asset base? And he won't hire someone because his business receives a tax cut---if he has enough workers, he still does after a tax cut. He has more profit remaining after taxes, that's all. Yay for him, but where does it make business sense to hire more people just because you can?

If the top ranks pay most of the taxes, can we find where they do not also benefit the most from the existence of society and government? Let's remember the concept of interests of state. Until the human rights movement in the 70s, and Jimmy Carter endorsing it, all foreign policy was based on commercial interests. There were issues of open seas, trade, protection of overseas assets owned by our citizens and businesses. There were issues of access to important resources (see, oil), of protecting trading partners (see, Europe), of annexing land (see, Texas). Some of our best land increases were purchased (Manhattan, Louisiana, Alaska), but the expectation was an increase in commerce, not merely places for people to live. Thar's gold in them thar hills.

And how do we defend our state interests? With the (revered-by-reactionaries) armed forces, combined with State Dept. expertise. Also benefiting mainly business is nearly every scientific undertaking sponsored by government, from surveying the land to developing astronomical instruments, which were crucial in navigating the high seas and showing up at a battle in the right place to surprise our enemies.

How about those despised entitlements? Shall we consider where a food-stamp coupon is used? It is not spent on Columbian cocaine, nor is it deposited in the Cayman Islands offshore bank system; it is put directly into the hands of business, and mainly the high-volume places like Wal-Mart. It goes mostly to the business owners, not to me or the food-stamp recipient's neighbors. Ditto Medicare premiums, which barely lose a few percent to overhead on the way to HCA.

Surely there are tax systems that are grossly unbalanced, completely disproportional to fairness and sustainability. That is not the case with ours, which has withstood many elections, and has been adjusted over time in a judicious manner. When it seemed too high, it was reduced (Kennedy, Reagan), and now that it seems low it will be raised a tiny bit. No reactionary complaining about giving his money to irresponsible home buyers has suggested what a fair rate is. It always sounds as if zero tax is the right amount, but that means zero government, which would collapse business (see, Somalia).

So let's simply howl with laughter at every feeble argument on "principle", honored not even in the breach, but only as a sales slogan. Let's look at what has worked in the past, how the present changes the circumstances, and try something without worrying about hurting the feelings of the grumpy greed sector. They don't like to admit they will go down with this ship, most of them, if it fails. (See, T-bills, rest of world buying.)